T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................ii A. Vulnerable Groups Unnecessarily in Detention ........................................................................................3 A1. Detention of People Fleeing Persecution ..................................................................................................3 A2. Protecting the Most Vulnerable: Detention of Women and Children ........................................................18 B. Indefinite, Mandatory and Secret Evidence Detainees ..............................................................................24 B1. Indefinite Detainees ..................................................................................................................................24 B2. Mandatory Detention ..............................................................................................................................28 B3. Detention Based on Secret Evidence ........................................................................................................31 C. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................32 Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................................39 REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS i A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S “T he Needless Detention of Immigrants in the United States” is the fourth in a series of reports produced by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) on “at-risk” Shirley Tang, Friedman & Siegelbaum; Sue Weishar and Kathleen Harrison, Catholic Charities of New Orleans; immigrants. The series attempts to put a human face Wendy Young, Womens’ Commission for Refugee on the difficulties faced by discrete populations of Women and Children. immigrants in the United States. Past reports in this This series would not have been possible without the series have covered immigrant families, naturalization, financial support of the Ford Foundation, the and low-wage laborers. Foundation for Child Development, Faye and Sandor CLINIC, a subsidiary of the U.S. Catholic Conference, Strauss, and the Rosenberg Foundation. This report provides legal support services to a network of 121 was also made possible (in part) by a grant from the local Catholic immigration programs. CLINIC also Carnegie Corporation of New York. Finally, CLINIC operates national legal service projects for “at-risk” could not have taken on this project without the newcomers, including a six site program for immi- support and collaboration of its sister agency, the grants in the “administrative” custody of the Migration and Refugee Services division of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). CLINIC Catholic Conference. Of course, the statements made is one of the three founding agencies of the Detention in the report and the views expressed are solely Watch Network, an affiliation of more than 100 CLINIC’s responsibility. agencies that provide legal, pastoral, and social CLINIC appreciates the many contributions it received services to INS detainees. in putting together this report. It hopes that the final Since its inception in April 1999, this project has been product contributes, in part, to comprehensive reform a collaborative one. CLINIC paralegal Molly McKenna of the INS detention system. has brilliantly staffed the project; she has collected many of the case studies and done much of the research for this report. Donald Kerwin, CLINIC’s Chief Operating Officer, wrote significant sections of this report and pulled its various pieces into a cohesive whole. Other significant contributors include Mark von Sternberg, Juan Osuna, Mary McClenahan, Alicia Triche, Helen Morris, and Tom Shea. Charles Wheeler and Juan Osuna helped edit various versions of the report. CLINIC’s detention attorneys provided most of the report’s case studies. They are Denise Baez, Mary Howells, Mary McClenahan, Tom Shea, Jill Sheldon, Alicia Triche, Ferdinand Ubozoh, and Allison Wannamaker. The following people also provided case studies and key information: David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center; Chris Einolf, Lutheran Social Services of the National Capitol Area; Madeline Ellis, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Regis Fernandez, Reitman & Parsonnet; Mark Messenbaugh, Davis, Polk & Wardwell; Sr. Marlene Perrotte, Las Americas Refugee Asylum Project; ii REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. T H E N E E D L E S S D E T E N T I O N O F I M M I G R A N T S I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S : Why Are We Locking Up Asylum-Seekers, Children, Stateless Persons, Long-Term Permanent Residents, and Petty Offenders? Photo Courtesy: INS We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted ... The Declaration of Independence I know not whether laws be right, // Or whether laws be wrong; // All that we know who lie in gaol // Is that the wall is strong; // And that each day is like a year, // A year whose days are long. Oscar Wilde, The Ballad of Reading Gaol Over the last several years, human rights and work with detainees have come together in the immigrant advocacy agencies have exhaustively docu- Detention Watch Network to identify and publicize mented the shortcomings in the INS detention system. the problems that they witness each day. Reports and articles have detailed significant problems The same problems have surfaced with dispiriting related to asylum-seekers,1 children,2 women,3 consistency in human rights reports, advocacy indefinite detainees,4 mandatory detainees,5 immi- meetings, and a steady stream of newspaper articles. grants in local jails,6 the standards governing INS Overcrowding, lack of privacy, and despair have detainees and oversight of its contract facilities,7 become endemic throughout the INS system. Many health care,8 immigrants in select INS processing inmates languish in the same dormitory-style rooms, centers and for-profit prisons,9 and particular ethnic up to 23 hours a day, without educational or recre- populations.10 Over the last five years, roughly 100 ational opportunities. The INS warehouses others in legal, pastoral, health, and social service agencies who REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 1 remote locations, apart from their families and support security grounds;13 (2) virtually all asylum-seekers services. Detainees face multiple hurdles in their who present themselves at the border but lack proper mostly unsuccessful attempts to obtain counsel. Local documents, until they can demonstrate a “credible jailers commingle immigrants with criminals serving fear” of persecution;14 (3) those seeking admission to prison sentences, with predictable consequences for the United States who appear inadmissible for other the immigrants. The INS system suffers from a than document problems15; (4) those ordered shortage of pastoral services and the lack of a formal removed for 90 days or, if the person “conspires or chaplaincy program. INS officials fail to communicate acts to prevent his removal,” for more than the 90- even the most basic information to detainees about day “removal period.”16 their status and situation; detainees often cannot The 1996 Immigration Act and its immediate prede- reach the INS deportation officers assigned to their cessor, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty cases. Thousands face long-term detention, typically Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),17 also culminated a decade in facilities designed for short-term use. Jailers fail to of legislation that expanded the crimes for which respect dietary restrictions and provide culturally inap- immigrants could be removed and severely restricted propriate food. Detainees receive medical care which their ability to contest their removal based on their ranges from perfunctory to the shockingly bad. Jailers equitable ties to the United States.18 Under current place draconian restrictions on visits by family law, long-term permanent residents, with U.S. citizen members, legal counsel, and human rights dele- spouses and children, good jobs, and the absence of gations. Immigrants abandon their legal claims to any ties to their countries of birth, can now be avoid further detention, only to remain detained for deported for relatively minor crimes that they weeks and months afterwards. The INS transfers committed years before. The operative term for one detainees frequently, often without reference to category of crimes that trigger removal and existing attorney-client relationships or other support mandatory detention — “aggravated felonies” — services. Jailers use segregation punitively, and occa- encompasses serious felonies, but also less severe sionally for transgressions that result from language offenses like money laundering, tax evasion, fraud, difficulties or mental illness. Guards verbally and shop-lifting, receipt of stolen property, obstruction of physically abuse detainees. Hunger strikes, suicide justice, perjury, document fraud, smuggling family attempts, and even riots occur with alarming members into the country (in some cases), certain frequency. gambling offenses, and illegal re-entry following At this point, the severity and institutional nature of removal for an “aggravated felony.”19 the problems in the INS detention system cannot be Locked up in a hodgepodge of INS “service refuted. In effect, immigrants in “civil” custody face processing” centers, for-profit prisons, federal prisons, all the privations, inhumanity, and violence of prison.11 and local jails, this growing population of “civil” Even under our current laws, this need not be the detainees also includes unaccompanied children, case. Thousands of immigrants in INS custody could persons in indefinite custody because their countries be released under supervision. In addition, the law’s will not accept their return, persons with claims to “mandatory detention” provisions could be satisfied U.S. citizenship, torture survivors, and those fleeing through home detention and other alternative forms persecution in their home countries. of custody. Lending the current system’s problems an air of intractability is the seeming inability of INS The INS has informed CLINIC that, as of July 2000, it headquarters, under the agency’s current structure, to detained 19,300 persons a day. The INS cannot be enforce its detention policies on local INS district blamed for current laws that mandate the detention of offices, much less on the jails and contract facilities the vast numbers of immigrants. The 1996 Immigration INS uses to detain most of those in its custody. Act tied the hands of the INS in many ways, requiring the agency to detain non-citizens who simply should Despite its lamentable track record and failure to make not be in custody and exacerbating what had long even marginal progress on many of these issues over been a crisis situation. The Act has already caused the span of many years, Congress passed legislation in untold suffering for thousands of persons, with no end 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant in sight. At the same time, the INS deserves abundant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“the 1996 Immigration criticism for: (1) its failure to exercise its discretion in a Act”),12 that has nearly tripled the number of non- principled, uniform manner to release those immi- citizens in INS custody. The 1996 Immigration Act grants it can; (2) its unconscionable failure to develop requires the INS to detain: (1) virtually all immigrants “alternatives-to-detention” that safeguard the public inadmissible or deportable on criminal and national 2 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. and prevent immigrants from absconding; (3) its failure to explore cost-effective alternative forms of a. The Obligations of detention (like home detention enforced through elec- the United States to tronic monitoring or “tether” programs) that would satisfy our law’s detention mandates. Asylum-Seekers This report contributes to the now extensive literature The United States, along with more than 130 other on the suffering caused by the INS detention system, countries, has agreed to be bound by international with a particular focus on persons who should not be treaties that seek to protect refugees by guaranteeing detained and the INS’s failure to pursue alternatives their right to apply for asylum. These include the 1951 for groups that it need not and should not detain. United Nations’ Convention relating to the Status of Section A describes the detention of vulnerable Refugees and the 1967 United Nations’ Protocol persons, including asylum seekers, women and relating to the Status of Refugees.21 The Refugee Act children. Section B covers persons subject to of 1980 enshrined these international obligations in mandatory and indefinite detention, as well as those domestic law.22 Under it, a person cannot be returned detained based on secret evidence. Section C to a country where his or her life or freedom would be recommends steps that could be taken to reform the threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, INS detention system. membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Under international law, the United States may not return individuals without providing an A. VULNERABLE GROUPS interview regarding their status; “rejection at the UNNECESSARILY IN frontier” is forbidden. Adding to its international obligations, in 1994 the United States became a party DETENTION to the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture23, Detention represents a particularly unjust and unnec- which prohibits the return of persons to countries essary response to thousands of non-citizens in INS where they would be in danger of torture, for custody. Many should not be detained at all. For whatever reason. others, detention should be a solution of last resort. The asylum process can be complicated and While always difficult, detention causes particular exhausting to negotiate. Often, victims of human anguish for certain populations because of their rights violations must provide extensive documen- gender, age, and other characteristics. For example, tation and wait for years while government officials confinement in correctional facilities with juvenile evaluate their cases. To complicate matters, both delinquents can scar immigrant children for life. For international and domestic standards are constantly in certain asylum-seekers, detention can evoke and even flux. The “expedited removal” system, discussed mirror the conditions they fled. below, represents the 1996 Immigration Act’s most egregious erosion of the U.S. asylum system. 1. Detention of People In 1996, Congress also introduced a one-year asylum Fleeing Persecution filing deadline.24 As it stands, a person who wishes to apply for asylum in the United States must do so The United States has a long and proud history of within a year of his or her arrival. There are offering refuge to persons fleeing persecution in their exceptions to this deadline, but these are narrow and native lands. This tradition finds expression in the their interpretation remains uncertain. They include Statue of Liberty’s welcome to the “huddled masses provisions permitting “late” filings if the individual can yearning to breathe free.” With the world’s popu- show either “changed circumstances” that affected lation of refugees and asylum-seekers exceeding 14 the person’s eligibility for asylum, or that the delay in million at the end of 1999,20 the United States’ lead- filing was caused by “extraordinary circumstances.”25 ership in the areas of refugee protection and The latter can be shown, for example, by evidence international human rights has never been more that the individual was the subject of a medical or crucial. Unfortunately, the United States undermines physical restraint which rendered the timely filing of a its international standing through its laws and policies claim beyond his or her control, or that he or she related to those fleeing persecution. The detention of suffered from a legal disability (e.g., was an unaccom- asylum-seekers, often for prolonged periods, offers an panied minor) that effectively prevented the filing.26 egregious example. Getting around the one-year deadline can be a REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 3 daunting task. Immigration Judges (known as “IJs”) been heard from since, and her attorneys and and INS officers often require documentation that friends fear the worst. many asylum seekers cannot secure. Detainees face increased barriers in collecting evidence b. Expedited Removal to support their claims. In the worst case scenario, The 1996 Immigration Act created a new “expedited detention can prevent an asylum-seeker from removal” process to deter the filing of frivolous presenting or establishing a claim, and can lead to his asylum claims. The law targets persons who arrive at or her removal. Although the U.S. asylum system U.S. ports-of-entry with false travel documents or no remains generous, new legal restrictions and documents. It allows the INS to return them without procedural glitches serve to undermine its very a hearing. purpose. After arrival and initial questioning by an INS officer, Anguish Over Her Family Places persons subject to expedited removal are sent to Asylum-Seeker in Peril “secondary inspection.” Unless they indicate a desire to apply for asylum or express a fear of persecution in “Mrs. D-” fled her native country, the their home country, immigrants processed at Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), after secondary inspection face summary return to their last her husband was tortured and killed due to his port of embarkation. If they do successfully convey involvement in a pro-democracy movement. their fears, they must then demonstrate that they Smuggled out of the country by Catholic priests, harbor a “credible fear” of persecution. At the Mrs. D- was forced to leave behind her eight children, ages 8 to 24. Four of these children credible fear interview, the individual must establish were Mrs. D-’s by birth, two belonged to her that there is a significant possibility that he or she husband by a prior marriage, and two were the could make out a legitimate claim for asylum. Prior to adopted children of Mrs. D-’s deceased sister. a credible fear finding, the asylum-seeker must be Upon her arrival in the United States, Mrs. D- detained. filed an application for political asylum. In fiscal years (FY) 1997-1999, the INS removed a In January 1998, Mrs. D-’s asylum application total of 189,177 persons pursuant to the expedited was “recommended” for approval. A “condi- removal process, which represents almost half of all tional” grant means the asylum application will persons removed from the country during that be approved, once the FBI verifies that the period.27 Over the same period, 14,951 persons were asylum-seeker has no criminal record. In the referred for a credible fear interview; 88 percent of meantime, however, the person cannot sponsor those referred were later determined to have satisfied her immediate family members for admission to the credible fear standard.28 the United States. In the case of Mrs. D-, final approval did not occur until one year after the A major problem with expedited removal has been the “recommended” grant, due to problems in secrecy surrounding the secondary inspection process. processing her fingerprints. Mrs. D-’s lawyer The only outside organization that has been allowed wrote the INS five letters during this period and to observe the inspection process is the United made repeated telephone calls. Once Mrs. D- Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).29 received final approval of her asylum application, The absence of effective monitoring leaves open the an additional nine months passed while she possibility that asylum-seekers may be removed sought visas for her children. Waiting periods like without a hearing on their claims — a potential this have regrettably become the norm. violation of the prohibition against “rejection at the frontier.” Apart from the concerns it raises from the These delays placed Mrs. D- and her children in perspective of international law, there is a growing peril. In early 1999, Mrs. D- received word from realization that expedited removal may not be relatives in the DRC that her children, sick and malnourished, were living just over the Congolese essential to deterring frivolous claims. Certain reforms border in Rwanda. By the time she received this adopted by the INS in 1995 significantly reduced news, Mrs. D- had been separated from her asylum filings, obviating the need for expedited children for more than 18 months. The anguish removal.30 Overall, the number of new asylum appli- caused by the separation proved too difficult for cations has declined 75 percent since 1993.31 her and Mrs. D- left the United States, returning Another problem involves the extensive use of to Africa to look for her children. She has not detention throughout this process, which may be 4 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. inconsistent with the international obligations of the standards and quality of treatment to which they United States. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee are subjected.36 Convention provides that countries “shall not impose Such statements may be looked to as both authori- penalties, on account of their illegal entry or tative interpretations of the Refugee Convention37 and presence” on refugees arriving from countries in illustrations of international opinion. Both Amnesty which they fear persecution. It goes on to forbid International and Human Rights Watch have also states to apply any “restrictions” to the movements of condemned U.S. policy regarding the detention of refugees unless they are “necessary.” asylum-seekers.38 U.S. law mandates that all arriving aliens seeking Given the problems inherent in detaining asylum- asylum must initially be held in detention if they are seekers, one would expect the INS to pursue programs not in possession of a visa or other proper entry that offered alternatives to their confinement. In fact, documents. As with other INS detainees, asylum- the INS has recently funded a pilot program in New seekers must endure prison-like conditions. In some York that provided for the supervised release of facilities, they have been subject to abuse.32 Family asylum-seekers and others not subject to mandatory members who arrive together are often split apart, detention.39 The program sought to satisfy the only even young children from their parents. Although the valid rationale for detaining asylum-seekers — that is, government calls this “civil detention,” from the that they might abscond before appearing for their asylum-seekers’ perspectives it is in fact a “penalty” court hearings. inflicted “on account of their illegal entry,” and thus violates Article 31. The INS Fails to Build on Successful Pilot The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Program to Supervise Released Asylum- requires that “every treaty in force…must be Seekers and to Assure Their Appearances performed…in good faith” and that “[a] treaty shall in Court be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given its terms.”33 Detention of From February 1997 to March 31, 2000, the Vera Institute for Justice administered a pilot project to asylum-seekers in prison-like settings often rises to the assure court appearances by immigrants in level of persecution, and cannot be considered a good removal proceedings. This “alternative-to- faith interpretation of the Refugee Convention. At its detention” program provided intensive heart, that Convention expresses a desire to protect supervision for non-citizens who would otherwise refugees, as explained in its preamble: “The United have been detained. The program verified that Nations has, on various occasions, manifested its potential participants had a community sponsor profound concern for refugees and endeavored to and a fixed address, and screened them based on assure refugees the widest possible exercise of … their community ties, compliance in prior immi- fundamental rights and freedoms.” The United States’ gration proceedings, and potential danger to practices do not manifest “profound concern,” but others. Intensive supervision consisted of instead discourage the exercise of the right to “seek “mandatory personal and telephonic reporting, and enjoy asylum” that is guaranteed in the United home visits (sometimes prearranged, sometimes Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.34 not), and consistent monitoring of participants’ whereabouts and the progress of their cases.”40 Several international organizations have spoken out The program also provided information on the against the detention of asylum-seekers; their legal process, made legal referrals, and accom- statements may be considered persuasive evidence of panied participants to court hearings. international opinion. Most notably, the UNHCR has repeatedly expressed its disapproval of the detention The 165 persons subject to the program’s of asylum-seekers.35 Its Executive Committee recently intensive supervision track included 83 asylum- seekers in expedited removal, 16 immigrants that averred: had committed minor crimes, and 66 persons arrested in work-site raids.41 Overall, 91 percent In view of Article 31 of the 1951 Convention of the intensively supervised immigrants appeared relating to the Status of Refugees and the fact for all of their required hearings, including 93 that the majority of asylum-seekers have not percent of asylum-seekers.42 Only two asylum- committed crimes — and indeed they are not seekers failed to appear for the merits hearings in suspected of having done so — their detention their cases. Apart from its success in preventing raises significant concern, both in relation to the flight, intensive supervision cost only $12 a day fundamental right to liberty, and because of the REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 5 per immigrant, compared to the $61 average limited visiting hours, visiting hours that are not daily cost of detention.43 In short, the program honored, transfers of clients away from counsel, the presented a humane and cost-effective alternative difficulty of reaching clients by phone, collect-call only to detention. phone policies within facilities, the inability to conduct attorney/client interviews in private, outdated or inac- curate legal services lists, and long delays in waiting for clients at the facilities. While the INS agreed to implement most of the ABA-proposed standards in its own detention facilities, it has thus far (1) refused to enshrine those standards in a federal regulation, (2) refused to extend the standards to local jails (that house the majority of INS detainees), and (3) failed to address severe telephone access problems in jails. Apart from making it difficult to prepare an asylum case, detention also discourages asylum-seekers from continuing to pursue their claims, especially when they must appeal negative decisions by IJs. The adminis- Photo Courtesy: INS trative appeals process usually takes between 6 and 12 months, and sometimes longer. After months in detention, many asylum-seekers opt to forego their c. The Impact of Detention cases and submit to deportation with all its risks.46 on Asylum-Seekers The Prospect of Spending Another Year Beyond its propriety under international law, the in Detention Prompts Refugee to Give detention of asylum-seekers raises numerous practical Up Claim difficulties. Of greatest concern, detention burdens the ability to pursue asylum claims, and leads many to “Mr. K-,” an engineer in his late twenties, was abandon their cases altogether.44 Most INS detention living a full life in Cameroon. His business centers and contract facilities, particularly local jails, allowed him to provide for his wife and two are located far away from family, legal, and other young sons. He was also politically active, and support systems. Even facilities located in urban areas, had become a leader on the local level of the like the for-profit facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Social Democratic Front (SDF), Cameroon’s oppo- sition party. He knew that his political activities cannot be easily reached by public transportation. carried risks, but did not realize their severity until Typically, detainees cannot collect the kind of docu- government officials arrested several of his asso- mentation necessary to support their claims. For ciates at a demonstration he had helped to example, asylum cases invariably benefit from medical organize. After authorities came to his home to affidavits setting forth a physician’s opinion as to arrest him, Mr. K- went into hiding. whether injuries actually sustained are consistent with Subsequently, an article was published (with Mr. the asylum-seeker’s account. Yet, statistics gathered K-’s photograph) reporting that he was wanted by Physicians for Human Rights in Boston, by the police because of his anti-government Massachusetts, indicate that detention hinders the activities. At this point, Mr. K- fled the country. ability to obtain such affidavits. Between July 1, 1999 and December 31, 1999, Physicians for Human Rights He arrived in the United States in September serviced 73 percent of requests for medical affidavits 1997 and requested political asylum. He was transferred to an INS detention center, where he for asylum-seekers not detained, but only 50 percent spent the next four and a half months. Mr. K- of requests by detainees.45 had a strong asylum case. At the judge’s request, Legal libraries in prisons tend to be outdated, and his lawyer obtained from the U.S. Embassy in often do not include current materials on immigration Cameroon a copy of the newspaper article on his laws and procedures. If counsel can be obtained, he anti-government activities. The U.S. Embassy or she must overcome a range of barriers to effective also put Mr. K-’s lawyer in touch with a high-level SDF official who verified, in writing, Mr. K-’s representation. Proposed standards, developed by the status in the party. Notwithstanding this American Bar Association (ABA), attempt to address evidence, the IJ denied his claim. legal access problems that have historically included 6 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. Mr. K-’s attorney urged him to appeal the judge’s return Mr. A- to the detention center to verify the denial. She thought that the Board of status of his appeal. One month later, when it Immigration Appeals (BIA) would see the injustice became clear that Mr. A- did not have an appeal of the judge’s decision and reverse it. However, pending, the INS attempted to deport him again. Mr. K- did not want to appeal because he could Again, Mr. A- was handcuffed, but this time he not face the prospect of spending another year in refused to cooperate and was placed in “segre- detention. The long months in detention had gation.” He was confined to a small cell without sapped him of his confidence and resolve, and by windows, with nothing to read and no human the time his case was denied in January, he was contact. After three days, Mr. A- was returned to desperate to be released. Mr. K- was deported to his dormitory. At this time, he contacted his Europe on February 15, 1998. On June 24, 1999, attorney, who admitted to him that no appeal he was granted asylum in France. had been filed. Mr. A- then immediately contacted the UNHCR, which advised him that he Many flee to the United States in the hope that they could file an application for protection under the will be provided a fair opportunity to show that their Convention Against Torture, which he did. One rights have been violated. Some have spent time in week later, detention officials again told Mr. A- prison because of their political or religious beliefs. that he was going to be deported. UNHCR Many have been tortured by prison guards, soldiers, contacted Mr. A-’s deportation officer and and others. Others have lost family members, friends, explained that a Torture Convention claim was and colleagues to violence. For such persons, pending. As a result, the INS agreed to suspend detention invariably comes as a shock and can evoke the deportation. the very conditions that they fled. Mr. A- obtained a new lawyer who assisted him Caught in a Web, Through No Fault of in filing a “motion to reopen” his asylum case His Own based in part on changed country conditions. An IJ granted the motion. By now, after a year in “Mr. A-” is a native and citizen of the DRC. He detention, Mr. A- found his continued detention fled the regime of Laurent Kabila in fear of perse- difficult to endure. While detained, Mr. A- was cution for having worked in housing projects for allowed only one hour of recreation each day in the former regime of Mobutu Sese Seko. an “outside” courtyard with very high walls and a heavily screened roof. Mr. A- left the facility Mr. A- had been arrested, imprisoned and only on his periodic trips to the airport and once tortured for three days by the Kabila government. to be hospitalized. He could receive visitors only Unable to obtain a passport from the government one day a week, and then for only 30 minutes at he was fleeing, Mr. A- attempted to enter the a time. United States with a passport that did not belong to him. At the airport, he spent 17 hours hand- Like others in the facility, Mr. A- saw no need for cuffed and shackled to a stool in a small room. his continued confinement, especially since his He passed a credible fear interview and was sent case had been reopened and he had shown that, to a detention facility. After three adjournments under the new circumstances in the DRC, he had caused by Mr. A-’s inability to obtain an attorney, a legitimate asylum case. He decided to join a an IJ denied his claim. Mr. A-’s detention made it hunger strike protesting the harsh conditions at difficult for him to secure qualified legal counsel. the facility and the INS’s unjust release policies. He was ultimately forced to settle for a lawyer On the 14th day of the strike, prison officials who knew very little about his case, had visited placed Mr. A- and other participants in solitary Mr. A- only once prior to the proceeding, and confinement for one week. Mr. A- only drank presented no evidence about the conditions in water during this period. By the last day of his the DRC. The lawyer also failed to appeal the confinement, he attempted to commit suicide by decision, despite having told Mr. A- that an swallowing Ben Gay and Tylenol. A guard appeal would be filed. noticed him lying on the floor next to the empty Ben Gay container. He was shackled, handcuffed After the IJ’s decision, the INS twice tried to and taken to the emergency room of a nearby remove Mr. A- from the United States. On the hospital. He remained in the hospital for two first occasion, officials handcuffed him, humil- days, chained to the hospital bed. iating him before other travelers passing through the airport. During the ride from the airport After his condition stabilized, Mr. A- was returned terminal to the plane, the officials were told to to the detention facility. The INS promised to REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 7 review the strikers’ cases and to release those Against Torture in the United States. At the found deserving of parole, but apparently this hearing, the IJ granted Mr. Z-’s application for never occurred. In July 1999, Mr. A- participated relief, finding in part that those taken into in another hunger strike, this one lasting a week. custody in Sudan routinely face torture and Some of the strikers were transferred to human rights abuses. By this point, Mr. Z- had maximum security jails. The remaining partic- been confined for more than a year. ipants, fearing transfer to facilities where they would be housed with criminals, gave up the The detention of torture survivors, like Mr. Z- and Mr. strike. A-, is cruel and inappropriate. The United States has ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other In September 1999, almost two years after he Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or requested asylum, an IJ approved Mr. A-’s claim. Punishment, and in 1998 it implemented that treaty. Upon his release, nine days later, Mr. A- filed for The Convention Against Torture prohibits the return of a work permit and a social security card. He those who have “good reasons” for believing that received his work permit five weeks later. When they would be tortured if they were returned to their Mr. A-’s social security card finally arrived in mid- home countries. Torture survivors often find detention November, he found a job working at the in the United States especially traumatic because reception desk of a youth hostel. prison reminds them of what happened to them in As Mr. A-’s case demonstrates, detention takes a their own countries. Handcuffs, leg irons, belly chains, particular toll on asylum-seekers who typically cannot prison jumpsuits, strip searches, and abusive guards understand why they are being “punished.” There can summon painful memories and trigger post- were numerous junctures in Mr. A-’s case when traumatic stress disorder. release would have been appropriate: (1) when Mr. A- passed his credible fear screening; (2) when it became Three Years Lost in INS Detention Prior clear that he qualified for protection under the to Obtaining Asylum Convention Against Torture; and (3) when the IJ “Mr. E-,” a 41-year-old Kenyan, opposed the granted his second attorney’s motion to reopen. The government in his home country. After being fact that none of these events prompted the INS to arrested at a demonstration, he spent five years release Mr. A- raises fundamental questions about the in a Kenyan prison where the authorities beat him system. with rifle butts and burned his skin with hot metal pliers. After his release, members of the oppo- Detained For More Than a Year, Despite sition party held him illegally for nine months Committing No Crime because they accused him of revealing party secrets. When he managed to escape, he fled “Mr. Z-,” a Sudanese national, was detained in the country. the United States after indicating that he wished to apply for asylum. He based his claim on both Mr. E- arrived in the United States as a stowaway the harm he feared because he refused to be in early 1997. He requested asylum and was drafted into the Sudanese national army and transferred to an INS detention center. Mr. E- persecution he had already suffered at the hands could not afford an attorney. Although he had of Sudanese rebels when he refused to let them only a seventh grade education, he was forced to appropriate his family’s livestock. Mr. Z- had represent himself in immigration court. Not been brutally attacked by the insurgents, as surprisingly, the judge denied his claim. Mr. E- attested to by a series of marks on his back. His appealed the decision. A year and a half later, detention, however, made it difficult to schedule the BIA sent Mr. E-’s case back to the IJ, who a medical interview and a medical report was not denied it again. Mr. E- appealed a second time. available on the day of his asylum hearing. The IJ The entire process took more than three years. denied his asylum application. Mr. E-’s time in detention was extremely difficult The rejection of his claim left Mr. Z- in anguish. for him. He had terrible memories of the torture He could not comprehend what purpose his he had suffered and detention made it harder for detention served. Ultimately, he requested to be him to overcome this trauma. At times, Mr. E- deported to the United Kingdom, rather than to became so depressed that he lost hope. He continue life in the detention facility. When the attempted suicide more than once. After two United Kingdom refused to accept Mr. Z-, he and a half years at the INS detention facility, the agreed to pursue a claim under the Convention INS transferred him to a county prison in a 8 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. different state. Although Mr. E- was held with the parents have been removed from the United criminals at the county prison, he preferred it to States. Even if the INS eventually releases the parents, the INS detention center because he had the the family is typically in far worse condition for having chance to go outdoors. gone through the experience. In March 2000, the BIA granted Mr. E-’s asylum Husband and Wife Detained in Separate request. When he was released a few days later, Pods and Away From Their Children after three years in detention, he kissed the ground in front of the prison. In March 1998, the INS took “Mr. and Mrs. M-”, Detention particularly devastates families who must political asylum-seekers from El Salvador, into its custody, leaving their 21- and 18-year-old wait months or even years for their loved ones to be daughters and a 16-year-old son to fend for released. Beyond the emotional distress caused by themselves. For 16 months, Mr. and Mrs. M- separation, family members on the outside often face lived in (separate) overcrowded “detention” grave economic hardship. In other cases, the INS pods, where they were required to stay — to detains entire families, but in different locations and sleep, eat, shower, and use the bathroom — 23 often fails to inform them of the others’ fate. hours a day. Separated from each other and from their children, Mr. and Mrs. M- tried to maintain Unreasonable Detention Policies Split their spirits through Bible study and helping other Up Family Fleeing Persecution detainees.47 Apart from the absence of privacy, they endured shoddy medical care and, in the “Mr. and Mrs. D-” arrived at an international husband’s case, threats from gang members. Mrs. airport in the United States without proper docu- M- now tests positive for tuberculosis. In fact, mentation after fleeing Algeria. Because Mrs. D- exposure to tuberculosis and other infectious had worked for the Algerian government, she diseases threatens to reach crisis proportions in had been repeatedly harassed and threatened by teeming INS facilities.48 Mr. M-, in turn, nearly Islamic extremists, who not only viewed her as an died from a burst appendix that the detention enemy, but also believed that women did not authorities neglected to treat for two days. belong in the workplace. Immediately upon their According to the couple, the facility’s health clinic arrival in the United States, Mrs. D- and her typically provided detainees with Tylenol, husband expressed a desire to apply for asylum. whatever their symptoms. While still at the airport, the INS arrested them. It then placed them in different facilities without Prior to their detention, the family owned a telling them what was happening to the other. triplex, living in one unit and renting the other When Mr. and Mrs. D- eventually tracked each two. Without their parents, the children could other down, officials prohibited them from seeing not meet the mortgage payments, and were or telephoning each other. Although Mrs. D- evicted in November 1998. After their eviction, wrote to Mr. D-, he did not receive her letters. the oldest child dropped out of college and took part-time work as a parking attendant to support The INS later removed Mrs. D- from the her siblings. She lived with friends. The second detention facility and placed her in a jail with daughter cleaned, cooked, did laundry and cared inmates serving criminal sentences. During her for two children, in return for lodging for her five weeks in detention, Mrs. D- became severely brother and herself. Mr. and Mrs. M- sent the depressed. Once released, she had no children any money they could scrape together knowledge of her surroundings, no place to go by selling their food rations and artwork to other and no money. In addition, the INS neglected to detainees. provide her with information on her husband’s status. Since the INS did not provide advance In July 1999, the couple was released from notice that Mrs. D- would be released, there was detention, without work, a home, health no opportunity to make living arrangements for insurance, or means of support. One week prior her. Mrs. D- left detention scared and confused. to their release, each underwent a medical exami- nation that included chest x-rays. While Mrs. M- The INS released Mr. D in July 1999, one week was only x-rayed once, Mr. M- received x-rays on after his wife. They will soon have a hearing on four consecutive days. Mr. M- requested his their asylum claims. medical records, but did not receive them and was assured that “no news is good news.” In In many cases, children must fend for themselves until January 2000, after his release, Mr. M- developed their parents are released from custody or even after a severe cough. A second round of x-rays REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 9 revealed a cancerous tumor in his lung. In early (release) based on urgent humanitarian reasons or February, doctors removed half of his lung. The significant public benefit.50 Yet, inconsistent release doctors have told Mr. M- that a tumor of the size practices have plagued the expedited removal process removed could not have developed in the six from the outset.51 Significant numbers of asylum- months since his release from detention. seekers have been unnecessarily detained for months The INS detention system often fails to accommodate or years because certain INS districts arbitrarily refuse the religious practices and other unique needs of those to release them. INS headquarters’ failure or inability in its custody. to enforce uniform release policies has been abun- dantly documented, as have the shifting release Moslem Somali Youth Observing practices of local district offices. In 1998, the INS Ramadan Placed in 24-Hour Lock-Down districts in Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and New Jersey each changed their release policies.52 In 1997, On November 28, 1999, “Mr. H-,” a 17-year-old individuals who passed the credible fear screening Somali, arrived at a U.S. airport and requested were generally denied parole everywhere but in New asylum. He had been persecuted due to his Jersey. Starting in 1998, the INS began to release membership in the Midgaan clan, an ethnic asylum-seekers in these other sites.53 Release became minority considered “untouchable” in Somalia. almost automatic for detainees in Miami.54 Some His mother was from another ethnic group, and married his Midgaan father against the will of her districts currently parole very few detainees. In FY family. She and her husband had been killed 1999, for example, only about nine percent of because of their marriage. asylum-seekers held in the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey were released from detention.55 Although Mr. H- had no criminal history, the INS In short, custody determinations often turn on where detained him at a state correctional center, and when the person is detained, rather than the placing him in a medium security unit with adults serving criminal sentences. A devout Moslem, equities of his or her case. Certain INS districts Mr. H- was observing Ramadan and could not eat regularly refuse parole to qualified applicants. Others during daylight hours. One evening, he was normally release asylum-seekers who meet the served ham (which he could not eat) for dinner. requirements. In recent years, the New Jersey and On another occasion, he tried to save a chicken New York INS districts have been particularly intran- sandwich served at lunch for his dinner. For this, sigent in their refusal to release bona fide he was punished with 24-hour lock-down in his asylum-seekers.56 As human rights agencies have cell. documented, many of these persons receive asylum after months in detention at taxpayer expense.57 On December 18, 1999, he was released from Adding insult to injury, in some cases, the INS does detention to stay with his cousin. His asylum not ultimately contest their asylum cases. In effect, case will be heard soon. such persons have been detained for no reason at all.58 d. The Need for Consistently INS Needlessly Detains Asylum-Seeker Generous INS Release Later Granted Asylum Practices “Mr. F-,” a 23-year-old asylum-seeker from Although the law requires the INS to detain asylum Somalia, was held for more than four months in seekers who arrive at airports without proper INS detention. He was denied parole even documents, it also presumes that the INS will release though he had passed a preliminary screening those who have passed the credible fear screening. interview, had established his identity, had a U.S. citizen cousin willing to care for him, and had no INS detention guidelines state that “it is INS policy to criminal record. favor release” for asylum-seekers who can meet these requirements.49 Released asylum-seekers can pursue Mr. F- fled Somalia after a bomb was thrown into their cases while living with relatives or friends who his home by members of the majority Hawiye have legal status in the country. clan militia. The bomb killed his father and In theory, all INS districts should follow the same severely burned Mr. F-’s face and hands. release standards. The statute provides for parole Neighbors hid Mr. F- for months while his wounds healed. He then fled Somalia. Mr. F-’s 10 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. mother, who militia members later attempted to where he ate, slept, showered, and used the rape, remains in hiding. The bombing culminated toilet (without any privacy). He could never go a series of attacks against his family and other outside, but only to a room with high walls and a members of the Meheri clan. On one occasion, partially open ceiling covered with wire. His Hawiye militia members had severely beaten Mr. friends and family could visit him through thick F-’s father when he attempted to stop them from glass in the non-contact visitation area for no sexually assaulting his wife. Mr. F- was tied up more than one or two hours a week. and held in another room during the attack. He heard his mother’s cries and his father begging After an INS officer determined that Mr. L- had a the men not to harm his family. credible fear of persecution, his attorneys requested that he be paroled from detention to In detention, Mr. F- was plagued with memories the care of his family and friends. He has six of the horrors he had faced. He suffered from cousins in the United States, one a U.S. citizen migraine headaches, had difficulty sleeping, and and the others permanent residents. His parole woke up with images of his family’s persecution request was supported by a U.S. citizen family fresh in his mind. In addition, the skin on his member who lived nearby and a family friend body that had been burned often caused him who was a city engineer. Notwithstanding these pain. ties, the INS refused to release Mr. L-. After three months, an IJ granted him asylum. If released, Mr. F- would have been able to seek therapy. Instead, months of detention compounded his trauma. After more than four months, he was granted asylum and released. Release determinations should not turn on the vagaries of geography or the idiosyncracies of local INS officials. There should be a national policy mandating the release of bona fide asylum-seekers and this policy should be uniformly applied. It is particularly cruel to detain asylum seekers who have family or friends willing to house and care for them. Political Prisoner Flees to the United States, Where He Finds Detention Instead of Freedom “Mr. L-” was a pro-democracy activist in his native Nigeria. His beliefs led him to organize demonstrations against Nigeria’s notoriously corrupt military government. He was involved in rallies protesting the assassination of former president Abiola’s wife, as well as the suspicious Photo Courtesy: INS death of Chief Abiola in prison. Because of Mr. L-’s activities, he was repeatedly arrested and severely beaten by authorities. After the military e. Lack of Access to Legal government detained Mr. L- and killed his brother, Mr. L- fled from Nigeria. Unable to Assistance for Detained obtain travel documents from the government Asylum-Seekers that was persecuting him, Mr. L- arrived at the United States without proper documents and Most detained asylum-seekers cannot obtain legal requested asylum. representation, although this can make all the difference in the outcome of their cases. In 1999, 506 Mr. L- was taken in handcuffs to an INS of 2,072 (almost 25 percent) of represented detainees detention center where officials strip-searched who applied were granted asylum. In the same year, him and forced him to change into a prison only 40 of 1,172 (3.4 percent) of unrepresented jumpsuit. From that point on, he faced detainees received asylum.59 confinement 22 hours a day in the same room REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 11 Immigrants in removal proceedings enjoy a statutory Because representing detainees is time-consuming and privilege of legal counsel, but “at no expense to the costly, private attorneys often charge more than their government.”60 According to the INS, this language normal rates and nonprofit agencies cannot accept does not preclude government funding to support significant numbers of these cases. As a result, large immigrant legal services.61 However, a different numbers of detainees go to court unrepresented.66 statute bars federal agencies from employing counsel The problem is compounded for immigrants detained “for the conduct of litigation in which the United in remote locations. For example, the 1,000-bed States, an agency, or employee thereof is a party, or is Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility used by the INS in interested.”62 The INS has concluded that in combi- Oakdale, Louisiana is two and a half hours away from nation these provisions prohibit “using appropriated the nearest major city, Baton Rouge. No free legal funds to pay the salaries of persons representing services are currently available to detainees at aliens.”63 At the same time, it concedes that the Oakdale, and only one private immigration lawyer federal government can fund “things that will regularly goes to the facility. Detainees in remote facilitate aliens obtaining representation.”64 county jails face the same dilemma. Executive Office for Immigration Review Mozambican Asylum-Seeker Detained Fails to Build on Successful Pilot Project for Three Years in Remote Arizona to Provide “Legal Rights” Presentations Prison to Detainees “Mr. S-,” a 29-year-old asylum-seeker from In the summer of 1998, the Executive Office for Mozambique, has been detained for more than Immigration Review (EOIR), the division of the three years in Eloy, Arizona. Because an IJ Department of Justice that oversees IJs and the mistakenly found Mr. S- barred from applying for BIA, funded a modest pilot project that provided asylum, he has never been able to present his “legal rights” presentations to detainees in three claim. Because he was poor and detained in a sites. The project sought to determine whether remote location, Mr. S- could not find a lawyer. informing INS detainees of their “legal rights” The Eloy facility is located in the middle of the would have any impact on representation rates, desert; until recently few free legal services were the efficiency of deportation proceedings, or INS available to detainees there. detention expenditures. The project took place over a 90-day period at the Florence, Arizona Mr. S- and his family fought in the Mozambican detention facility (staffed by the Florence civil war. His father was a well-known local Immigration and Refugee Project), the San Pedro leader of the Mozambican National Resistance INS Processing Center in Los Angeles (staffed by (RENAMO), which opposed the communist CLINIC), and the Port Isabel INS Processing government. Mr. S- himself had been a Center in Harlingen, Texas (staffed by the South RENAMO soldier since age 14. After his parents Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project). were captured and killed, the authorities began looking for Mr. S-. He fled the country, and In its program evaluation, the EOIR concluded eventually made his way to the United States. that the “rights presentations” benefitted the detainees, the INS, and IJs.65 Detainees bene- Mr. S- crossed the U.S.-Mexico border with no fitted from accurate legal information and documents, no money, and nowhere to go. He increased rates of legal representation. The INS approached a church in an Arizona border town, benefitted from reduced anxiety among detainees hoping for assistance. Finding no one there, he and decreased detention costs, as the “rights took a bicycle that was leaning against the wall. presentations” convinced many to abandon their When he returned the bicycle, he was arrested cases since they did not have viable legal claims. and charged with burglary. He pled guilty and IJs, in turn, were able to complete more cases in a was sentenced to 80 days in jail and three years summary fashion and benefitted from immigrants probation. He was then turned over to the INS, who came to their hearings informed about the taken to the Eloy facility, and placed in depor- process and the law. The report estimated that it tation proceedings. would cost $1.3 million to expand the project nationwide. Although a humane, cost-effective At Eloy, Mr. S- could not find a lawyer to program, EOIR apparently has no plans to represent him for a price he could afford. No pro replicate it. bono lawyers were available. At what was supposed to be Mr. S-’s final hearing, the IJ told 12 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. him that he was barred from applying for asylum. Under a new law, the judge maintained, Mr. S- f. Inadequate Health Care was considered an aggravated felon. In fact, the judge was mistaken, which an immigration lawyer and Failure to Release could have brought to his attention. However, Those with Severe Mr. S- was unable to defend himself and, as a result, he spent the next three years in detention. Medical Conditions His 1999 request for protection under the The shoddy and occasionally life-threatening health Convention Against Torture was denied. When care provided to immigrants has been a consistent he finally obtained legal representation, his lawyer appealed his case to the BIA, where it is currently theme in human rights reports on the INS detention pending.67 system over the last decade.69 Recent reports indicate that, if anything, the quality of care has deteriorated Some INS detainees try to represent themselves, but in recent years. even if their prison happens to have an updated legal library with immigration materials (and most local jails In 1998, for example, Human Rights Watch found do not), few can master the complex legal procedures extreme problems in the medical care provided to INS and standards that apply to their cases. detainees in local jails, including “lack of prompt treatment, requirements that detainees pay for Detainees also face problems with new procedures for medical treatment, inadequate diagnosis or treatment conducting removal hearings. In particular, removal of mental problems, inability to communicate with hearings are increasingly being held by video- detainees seeking medical treatment, and a dental conference.68 In these cases, the judge and the policy in which extraction is the sole remedy for every detainee observe and speak to each other through dental problem.”70 The report identified poor monitors in both the court and the detention center. management as the source of these problems, The INS trial attorney likewise remains in the court concluding that “INS has no discernible policy room. The detainee’s counsel may appear in person regarding which medical services should or should not or telephonically. be provided by local jails.”71 A recent investigation by The INS and EOIR view video-conferencing as a tool the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division regarding the medical to provide removal hearings for non-citizens who are care provided to inmates in one INS contract facility, serving criminal sentences, obviating the need to the Jackson County Correctional Facility in Florida, transfer them to an INS detention facility. In this way, uncovered significant problems in “access to care; the INS hopes to facilitate the deportation of physician supervision of medical care; medication detainees not eligible for relief from removal. access and management; chronic illness management; emergency/urgent care; infectious disease control; Video hearings put asylum-seekers at a distinct disad- mental health care; care and supervision of isolated or vantage. An in-person hearing affords an restrained inmates; and medical diets.”72 asylum-seeker a better opportunity to establish a human connection with the judge and to demonstrate In 1999, Amnesty International concluded that the his or her credibility. Video-conferencing also interferes INS violated international standards for the treatment with a detainee’s right to counsel because it allows the of detainees by failing to determine whether asylum- INS to keep a detainee at a distant location, away seekers in its custody had been tortured and, as a from counsel and other support systems. If the consequence, failing to take appropriate steps to detainee can secure counsel at all in these circum- manage their trauma.73 The report found that the INS stances, pre-trial attorney/client contact is limited. victimized many asylum-seekers by placing them in The ability to examine witnesses, object to questions solitary confinement for behavior caused by past by the INS, and otherwise provide adequate represen- trauma.74 tation at the hearing may also be compromised. The additional stress placed on the INS system by mandatory detention does not bode well for improved medical care in the future. The cases of Mr. and Mrs. M-, discussed above, illustrate the increased risk of contracting infectious diseases (like tuberculosis) and the inability of detainees to obtain appropriate care in overcrowded facilities. Language difficulties often exacerbate problems in medical treatment. New REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 13 arrivals often do not speak English. While the U.S. Asylum-Seeker Who Is More Than Seven Public Health Service, which provides medical services Months Pregnant Nearly Goes into Labor in many facilities, can use telephone interpreters to in Detention communicate with detainees in their own languages, doctors and nurses often insist on speaking in English. “Mrs. I-” fled her home country, Nigeria, in order The INS also continues to detain asylum-seekers who to seek asylum in the United States. When she should be released for medical reasons. arrived, although she was seven and a half months pregnant, the INS detained her. For more Asylum-Seeker with Facial Paralysis than four days, she suffered from a high fever Cannot Communicate with Doctor and vomiting. After five days in detention, she went into false labor and the INS finally took her “Mr. H-,” a young Somali, came to the United to a local hospital. Although the law generally States to apply for asylum. He belongs to a small prohibits the release of asylum-seekers before minority clan in Somalia, and feared persecution they have passed the credible fear screening, in from the large clan militias that fight for control this case the INS could have released Mrs. I- over the country. One of these militias under regulations that allow for parole “to meet a imprisoned and tortured Mr. H-, and killed his medical emergency.” After Mrs. I-’s condition father. Mr. H- eventually made his way out of stabilized, the INS attempted to take her into the country, and bought a ticket to the United custody again, but the hospital refused to release States. He had to buy travel documents because her because of her medical condition. Ultimately, Somalia had no government that could validly Mrs. I- received parole on humanitarian grounds, issue them. Upon arriving at an international allowing her to live with her relatives in the airport, he was transferred to a detention facility. United States. After almost five months, Mr. H- was still waiting in detention for his asylum hearing. One afternoon, while brushing his teeth, he was suddenly unable to move the muscles on the right side of his face, which felt completely numb. He panicked, and with the help of another Somali detainee, asked to see a doctor. The nurse who examined him later that night did not make a diagnosis, but told him that he needed to see a doctor. Yet, three days passed without Mr. H- seeing a doctor. During that time, Mr. H- was terrified that he had suffered a stroke. On the fourth day, a doctor finally examined him. Mr. H- does not speak or read English, so he asked for an interpreter. The doctor refused. Although the doctor diagnosed Mr. H- with Bell’s palsy, which Photo Courtesy: INS is not a serious condition, Mr. H- was not able to understand the diagnosis. During subsequent medical examinations, public health personnel consistently refused Mr. H-’s requests for an inter- g. Lack of Access to Pastoral preter. Mr. H- remained confused and fearful, Care and Social Services and was often unable to sleep at night because he was so worried about his health. Immigration detainees experience loneliness, frus- tration, confusion, and despair. Like prisoners serving Mr. H-’s paralysis and numbness went away after criminal sentences, they are separated from friends a few weeks. However, he reports that the expe- and family and face the daily indignities of incar- rience was the most frightening and ceration. They also face the additional stress of dehumanizing aspect of his detention. After uncertainty. Unlike criminal prisoners, INS detainees more than eight months in detention, Mr. H- was cannot predict the length of their detention. Even granted asylum and released. worse, they do not know if they will ultimately be released or deported to a country where they might be persecuted. In these circumstances, the assistance of pastoral and social workers can make all the 14 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. difference. Unfortunately, the INS does not have a formal chaplaincy program for those in its custody h. Overcrowding and, as a result, many detainees do not have access to The physical conditions at detention facilities, pastoral services. including overcrowding and the resulting lack of privacy, drive many detainees to despair. At the INS Terminates English Classes and Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey, which the Bible Study for Asylum-Seekers INS considers a model facility, asylum-seekers spend 22 hours a day in the same room. In that room, as “Ms. R-,” a single mother of twins, came to the many as 40 people eat, sleep, shower, and use the United States in February 1997. When she bathroom. They must use the toilets and showers in arrived at the airport and asked for asylum, she plain view of other detainees and guards. They can was handcuffed and transferred to a detention never go outdoors, only to an indoor room with a center. Ms. R-’s asylum claim has twice been denied by an IJ, and her case is currently on partially-open ceiling that is covered with a chain-link appeal. Although she has no criminal record, Ms. fence. Some men and women have been living in R- has spent more than three years in INS these conditions for more than two years. detention. She wears a prison uniform, and The INS’s Krome Service Processing Center in Miami sleeps, eats, showers, and uses the toilet in the has consistently suffered from overcrowding. In same room that she shares with other detainees. recent years, the center’s population has risen from She is never allowed outside. 300 to 550, and at times, has exceeded 600.75 While Detention under these conditions has caused Ms. many of those confined at Krome have criminal R- great anguish. She worries constantly about convictions, others are asylum-seekers who arrived at her twin boys in Africa. She believes that her the Miami International Airport. stress and inactivity contribute to her high blood As a result of overcrowding, temporary cots have pressure. Despite poor English language skills, become a staple at Krome, and buildings that were Ms. R- managed to communicate her frustrations and fears to the priest who celebrated mass at supposed to be closed or used for other purposes are the facility. With his help, she contacted the now being used to house detainees. At this writing, Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). 16 cots have been added to six of the pods for detainees with criminal convictions, even though Ms. R- became an avid participant in programs those pods were already filled to their maximum that JRS provided at the detention center. She capacity of 50 persons. Detainees have complained attended an English class each week and was able that mattresses for these cots have been in short to forget temporarily that she was in prison. The supply. Moreover, officials have converted part of the new words she learned helped her communicate Public Health Service building into housing for with guards and other detainees. She also detainees and male asylum-seekers have been housed regularly attended Bible study sessions and small in a building that was supposed to be closed. group pastoral visits, which “helped [her] learn about God.” “You know, sometimes all you The overcrowding has not only made daily life more want to do is cry, cry in detention,” she said. difficult for detainees, it has also limited attorney “But then you see it doesn’t help anything. So access. Because of the high numbers at Krome, daily instead I pray ... I leave it to God.” counts taken at the facility are frequently inaccurate, resulting in recounts which effectively close the facility In late 1999, the INS canceled all of these for hours. Since detainees must remain in one location programs because the pastoral volunteers during this time, attorneys who would like to visit their discussed detention during Bible study and clients must either wait or return another day. English class. The INS said that this violated its (unwritten) rules, raising the question, if not detention, what would pastoral workers discuss with detainees? Ms. R- now finds that she has nothing to look forward to and has begun to “think too much” again. After more than four months, Bible study classes finally began again. Now, however, she says that the classes are monitored by the INS and “are not conducted with joy like before.” English classes and pastoral visits are still prohibited. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 15 to a detention center. She remained detained there for seven months before being transferred to a county jail. At the jail, Ms. T- was strip-searched and placed in minimum security. Shortly after her arrival, she was moved to the maximum security section without explanation, even though she was a non- criminal detainee. When she saw the conditions of the other prisoners in maximum security, Ms. T- became despondent and started crying. She attempted to explain that she sought asylum and was not a criminal. Photo Courtesy: INS Her protests seemed to enrage the guards, who yelled at her and forcibly took her to her cell. Ms. T continued to cry. As a result, the guards i. Abuse by Prison Officials placed her in what they called the Bad Attitude and Misuse of Segregation Unit or “BAU.” Prisoners viewed the BAU as a form of punishment for rule violations. The conditions in INS “processing centers” and contract prisons has led to hunger strikes, suicide Ms. T- was seated on the floor in the cell when a attempts, and even riots.76 Abuse by guards and female guard and a nurse entered and told her to other detention officials represents a recurring theme take off her uniform. She complied, but refused in reports on the INS system.77 For example, ten to remove her underwear and her bra. The two guards at the Union County jail in New Jersey were women held Ms. T- and forcibly took off her bra and underwear. Ms. T- then went to sit on the convicted for various offenses related to assaults bed to cover herself with a blanket, but the bed against INS detainees in their custody.78 Among did not have sheets or a blanket; it was a other abuses, the guards beat and kicked immigrants, mattress covered in plastic. She hid under the stuffed their heads into toilets, yanked out their pubic bed because she was embarrassed to be naked. hair, and squeezed their tongues with pliers.79 In a bitter irony, the victims of these assaults had been Two large male guards arrived and pulled her transferred to Union County from the INS contract from under the bed. Five guards then facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey where, according to surrounded her and threw her into the middle of an INS report, they had been “subjected to the cell. The guards asked whether she was harassment, verbal abuse, and other degrading hearing voices or was trying to kill herself. She actions” by guards.80 At that facility, for example, responded that if she had wanted to kill herself guards refused to issue sanitary napkins to women she would have remained in her own country. and provided them with oversized male underwear She told them that she was upset at the way they were treating her. A guard then threw her on the marked with hand-written question marks on the bed in the cell. Because it had no sheets or crotch area.81 blankets, it was very cold. The two male guards held her down. One held her arms and head Abuse of Asylum-Seekers against the bed while the other held down her “Ms. T-” arrived in the United States three years legs. Meanwhile, another guard injected her with ago, as a 19-year-old asylum-seeker. In her a drug. The guards then released her. She again native Uganda, Ms. T- had opposed the hid under the bed to hide her nudity. The drug government and supported the opposition rebels. had no effect on her. About 30 minutes later, the As a result, the government threatened to kill her. guards returned, pulled her out from under the After the military kidnapped her sister thinking bed and took her to another cell. that it was Ms. T-, Ms. T- fled Uganda in the only way open to her, with false documents. When they arrived at the new cell, the guards threw Ms. T- on a bed, and shackled both her Ms. T- arrived at an international airport a few legs and her arms to the bed so that she was days later. After she asked for asylum, the INS facing up. She cried out in fear. A guard again handcuffed her, shackled her ankles, and took her injected her with a drug. She continued to cry. A guard returned and put a towel on her stomach, 16 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. but this did not cover her entire body so Ms. T- necessary to prevent Mr. X- from committing attempted to move the towel with her shackled suicide. Mr. X-’s attorney estimates that he has hand to cover herself, bruising her hand. spent more than seven months in solitary confinement since his arrival in the United States. Ms. T- was shackled to the bed for two days. She was unconscious during part of the time, A judge denied Mr. X’-s application for political perhaps due to the injections. Finally, she was asylum and the BIA upheld this denial. The IJ taken to a doctor. He asked her some questions also denied his claim under the Convention and told her that she could return to the Against Torture, citing minor inconsistencies in his minimum security section of the prison. The testimony. An appeal of the IJ’s decision is guards, however, refused to return her. After 55 currently pending before the BIA. days in maximum security, the INS transferred Ms. T- back to the INS detention center. She was During Mr. X-’s prolonged segregation at the INS released from detention about a year and a half detention center, his attorney made several after arriving in the United States. The IJ granted requests that he be afforded a psychological eval- her asylum request four months later. Ms. T- is uation and appropriate mental health care. After now attending school and trying to forget her his requests were ignored, the attorney notified ordeal. detention officials that a lawsuit would be filed. Shortly thereafter, the INS transferred Mr. X- to a At times, detention officials misuse segregation, state prison where he was also placed in solitary turning it from a disciplinary tool into an instrument of confinement. Recently, he was sent to a different cruelty. Segregation seems a particularly cruel state correctional center, where he is being held response to persons suffering from mental or physical in a mental ward. illness.82 Misuse of Segregation for Mentally Ill j. Improperly Informing Detainee Foreign-Government Mr. X-, a Sri Lankan national, arrived in the Officials of Asylum-Seekers United States in April 1998. He had endured torture by his country’s government, as evidenced in Detention by his broken fingers. Mr. X- hoped to pass through the United States in transit to Canada, INS regulations require the agency to maintain the where he planned to join his sister and brother- confidentiality of asylum-seekers.83 Asylum- seekers in-law. However, due to his invalid travel often fear that if officials from their own governments documents, the INS placed him in expedited learn that they have come forward with their stories, removal. Although he passed a credible fear their family members abroad will be endangered. Or, screening, Mr. X- remained in detention. At the if they do not ultimately receive asylum, they will be detention center, Mr. X- suffered serious rectal at even greater risk of persecution themselves. bleeding, hemorrhaging, and depression. His Unfortunately, these fears are often justified. medical problems were so severe that he was often unable to sleep at night. When he slept he In order to protect asylum-seekers and their families, wore diapers, which were soaked with blood by the United States must take seriously its responsibility morning. Several of his fellow detainees wrote a to maintain confidentiality. Some INS districts, letter to the detention center officials stating their however, ignore this duty. For example, in New York, concerns about his health. On one occasion, asylum-seekers from certain countries have received unable to sleep and in agonizing pain, Mr. X- left letters informing them that their consulates were his bunk and went to the common eating area. notified that they are in INS detention. In themselves, At 3:00 a.m., a guard found Mr. X- sitting in the the letters comply with a regulation that requires the room and listening to his walkman. For failing to United States to notify certain governments of the obey the center’s rules, the guard placed Mr. X- detention of their nationals.84 However, the INS has in solitary confinement. gone a step further and informed consulates that their While detained, Mr. X- exhibited mental health nationals are detained at facilities which hold only and behavioral problems. He attempted suicide asylum-seekers. This effectively violates the prohi- several times. Rather than providing Mr. X- with bition against informing foreign governments of their appropriate treatment, officials placed him in nationals’ asylum claims. solitary confinement, arguing that this was REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 17 Confronted by the Government That Killed His Parents “Mr. B-,” a 27-year-old, fled his native country in Africa after the authorities murdered his mother and father outside their home. His father, a political activist, was shot by soldiers while Mr. B- watched from a window. After his parents’ deaths, Mr. B- learned that he himself was also wanted by the authorities. A friend of his father’s, who was hiding Mr. B-, insisted that he flee the country. In October 1999, Mr. B- fled to the United States with someone else’s passport. As is typical in Photo Courtesy: INS such cases, he could not secure his own travel documents from the authorities in his country. Upon his arrival, Mr. B- was detained at an INS 2. Protecting the Most detention center. By March, he had obtained free Vulnerable: Detention of legal assistance and had begun to feel secure in the United States. One day, however, he was Women and Children called to the visitation area, where he expected to see his lawyer. Instead, he was confronted by The detention of bona fide asylum-seekers raises two representatives from his country’s consulate significant concerns about the viability of the United who said they wished to interview him. Mr. B- States’ protection regime. Particularly troubling is the was shocked, because he had not contacted his long-term detention of those who raise cutting-edge government and did not wish to speak to asylum claims. Increasing numbers of women and members of the regime that killed his parents. children, for example, are filing for asylum based on He believes that the INS notified his government claims that stretch the traditional confines of asylum of his presence and brought them in to see him.85 law. These cases merit particular attention; the Since the facility where Mr. B- was detained holds UNHCR estimates that women and children comprise almost exclusively asylum-seekers, it would have up to 80 percent of most refugee populations.86 been obvious to the consular representatives that However, adjudicators often dismiss novel claims, Mr. B- had requested asylum. failing to recognize their merits under modern refugee principles. As a result, many asylum-seekers who Mr. B- is now worried that if he loses his asylum claim and is deported, the government will count make gender- or age-based claims must endure long his asylum request as another strike against him. periods of detention while their cases run their course. a. Women in Detention One of the most publicized cases raising gender issues in recent years involved Fauziya Kassindja, a citizen of Togo.87 After the death of her father, Ms. Kassindja was taken in by an aunt who insisted not only that she marry a much older man against her wishes, but also that she undergo female genital mutilation (FGM), a procedure that disfigures the female genitalia. Her asylum claim was initially presented while Ms. Kassindja was in INS detention. An IJ denied the claim, maintaining that FGM did not constitute persecution against a specific group, but conformed with a general cultural norm. Eventually, Ms. Kassindja obtained asylum through a landmark ruling by the BIA that FGM constituted persecution for asylum purposes.88 The case paved the way for many similar claims. 18 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. Ms. Kassindja’s case arose prior to expedited removal. Severely Battered Asylum-Seeker Had expedited removal been in place, her fate would Detained certainly have been different. There would have been no mechanism to correct the decision reached by the judge. Mrs. K-, a 50-year-old native of the DRC, was married to a military officer who served under the The system was tested some time later with the case regime of former President Mobutu. Together, of Adelaide Abankwah, a young woman from Ghana they had four children, ages 24, 21, 12 and 7. who, unlike Ms. Kassindja, was placed in expedited During the course of their marriage, Mr. K- removal upon her arrival. After passing her credible repeatedly raped and severely beat Mrs. K-. Mrs. fear interview, Ms. Abankwah was confined in the K- also contracted sexually transmitted diseases Wackenhut detention facility, where she remained for from her husband. According to the U.S. a year and a half. She was 29 and a member of the Department of State, domestic violence is wide- Nkumissa tribe. This tribe punishes women who spread and rarely reported in the DRC. engage in premarital sexual relationships. When faced Moreover, the DRC has no laws that address with an arranged marriage which would have revealed spousal abuse, and no crisis centers or hotlines for victims. Due to Mr. K-’s high ranking military that she had engaged in premarital sex, Ms. status and the refusal of the government to Abankwah began to fear that FGM would be intervene in what it considers a “private” matter, performed on her and she fled to the United States. Mrs. K- had no protection from her batterer. An IJ denied her asylum claim, and the BIA affirmed. A federal court eventually overturned this denial, In early 1998, Mrs. K- nearly escaped death after holding that the judge and BIA had imposed too high a gruesome beating that left her unconscious for a burden of proof.89 four days. She was threatened with a gun, punched, kicked, raped, and dragged across the The decision represented a triumph for asylum- floor, before her son was able to transport her to seekers. At the same time, it highlighted the her brother’s home. After Mrs. K- recovered difficulties created by detention in such cases. Ms. enough to travel, she fled to the United States Abankwah’s case attracted considerable attention using her sister’s passport. She could not secure from the news media, lawyers and advocacy organi- her own passport because she feared that officials zations, fortifying her decision to pursue her case. at the passport agency would alert her husband Other women, however, almost certainly have failed that she was trying to flee. to raise or have abandoned similar claims in the face of open-ended detention. Upon her arrival in the United States in March 1998, Mrs. K- passed a credible fear interview Immigrants who fear the consequences of a purely and was sent to an INS detention center. She “personal” dispute have traditionally not been found filed an application for political asylum, arguing eligible for asylum. Yet a growing class of asylum- that she had suffered persecution as a member of seekers maintain that they fear abuse at the hands of the social group consisting of Congolese women their husbands, and that their government will not who refused to live at the mercy of abusive protect them.90 The UNHCR has unequivocally stated husbands. The IJ and subsequently the BIA that countries are free to apply the refugee definition denied her application. Her case was later so as to include women fleeing domestic violence in reopened and she applied for relief from removal these circumstances.91 Canada, for example, issued under the Convention Against Torture. In August 2000, 29 months after her arrival in the United guidelines recommending that women should be States, Mrs. K- was granted protection under the recognized as refugees if they suffered domestic Convention Against Torture and was released violence, provided that they could not secure from detention. protection from their governments.92 The Canadian Guidelines were mirrored in similar INS guidelines adopted in the United States,93 and several IJs have b. Children in Detention granted asylum to women based on unchecked Children also deserve special treatment in our immigra- domestic abuse in their homelands. In a 1999 tion system. As in the case of women seeking asylum, decision, however, the BIA rejected the claim of a the United States has followed Canada in adopting woman who had been beaten by her husband and model guidelines intended to establish an appropriate repeatedly denied government protection.94 The methodology for deciding children’s claims.95 The U.S. decision has already been used to deny at least one guidelines recognize that certain forms of human rights asylum claim that raised similar issues. abuses can only be experienced by children. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 19 The celebrated case of Elian Gonzalez, the six-year-old Twin Brothers Flee Street Gangs, Find Cuban boy whose custody became a battleground for Refuge international relations, drew significant attention to the issue of children in INS custody. Every year, the Jose Luis Oliva and Jose Enrique Oliva are 16- INS apprehends several thousand unaccompanied year-old twin brothers from Honduras.103 The minors (under 18 years of age) attempting to enter to Border Patrol arrested them last summer after they the United States.96 All of them are arrested, almost swam across the Rio Grande. The INS placed all of them are detained for some period, and many them in a detention facility, where they remained pending a decision on their cases. The children are eventually deported. In FY 1998, the INS reported maintain that if returned to Honduras, there having detained roughly 5,300 children; it deported would be no one to care for them, they would be 880 of them.97 In FY 1999, the INS detained 4,607 forced to live on the street, and their lives would undocumented juveniles under the age of 18 and be at risk. Their mother abandoned the boys returned 1,218 juveniles.98 These children travel by when they were 22 days old. They lived with land, air and sea, and come from all corners of the various relatives who physically abused them. globe. A large number originate in Mexico, South and Central America, but children’s advocates report The asylum applications filed by these boys raised assisting detained minors from as far away as Sri novel questions. During the pendency of their Lanka, Albania, Pakistan, and China. cases, they remained in detention. The INS argued that releasing the boys would leave them The United States’ detention of unaccompanied homeless. Their lawyers argued that some form minors has come under intense criticism. For of secure housing, distinct from detention, was example, Human Rights Watch concluded that “unac- required in light of their age and vulnerability. companied children awaiting determination of their The lawyers requested the appointment of a status should not be detained,” and that “the U.S. special guardian to safeguard the children’s Congress should not charge the same agency with the interests. care of unaccompanied, undocumented children and also the enforcement of immigration laws against Jose Luis’ and Jose Enrique’s cases had a happy them.”99 ending. The IJ granted asylum to the boys on February 7, 2000. International organizations envision a system that nurtures and cares for children, instead of one that imprisons them. The UNHCR maintains that “children seeking asylum, particularly if they are unaccom- panied, are entitled to special care and protection.”100 This should include education, health care, and appointment of a special guardian “with expertise in the field of child caring.”101 In such a system, “unac- companied minors should never be detained on account of illegal entry or presence.”102 International treaties affirm the same themes. Article 20 of the 1990 United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United States has not ratified, provides that unaccompanied children “shall Photo Courtesy: INS be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State” and that if not sent to foster Detained While Only Eleven Years Old care, they should be sent to “suitable institutions for the care of the children.” Placement in detention Eber Sandoval is an 11-year-old from Honduras. centers and jails, especially with adjudicated juvenile After crossing the Rio Grande last summer near delinquents, is not envisioned and would certainly Brownsville, Texas, Eber was detained at a special violate the spirit of the treaty. Despite these interna- facility for juveniles located in Los Fresnos, Texas. tional standards, the United States routinely detains Shortly after his birth, both of his parents children arriving in the country, many of whom fled abandoned him. Like Jose Enrique and Jose Luis, intolerable situations in their home countries. Eber maintained that in Honduras he would have been forced to participate in gang activities and that security forces would have retaliated against 20 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. him. In addition, he had no one to look after him Ultimately, the gang members killed the judge to there. While Eber was detained at a more appro- whom J- had reported the theft. priate facility than Jose Enrique and Jose Luis, the detention of children always raises concerns.104 Upon his apprehension by the Border Patrol in Eber received political asylum in March 2000, and 1997, J- was taken into INS custody. He filed an was released from custody shortly thereafter. asylum application in January 1998. An IJ denied the application in late February 1998. The BIA 15-Year-Old Girl Detained in Juvenile denied his appeal in October 1998. During this Jail for Seven Months Prior to Asylum time, J- remained in detention. The day after the Grant BIA denied the case, his representative filed a request for an interview under the Convention In a case that gained national attention, a 15- Against Torture and requested a stay of depor- year-old girl arrived in the United States from tation. Nevertheless, the INS deported J- to China on April 9, 1999. She had been smuggled Honduras. into the United States at the request of her parents. As the third child in her family, the girl J-’s representative contacted INS headquarters had been denied education, medical care, and and explained the situation. The INS agreed that other basic rights in China under her nation’s his deportation had violated the Torture family planning policy. Upon her arrival in the Convention and that he should be returned to United States, she applied for political asylum. In the United States. An officer instructed J-’s repre- May 1999, she was transferred to a juvenile jail in sentative to have J- proceed to the U.S. Embassy Portland, Oregon, where she remained detained in Tegucigalpa. (with criminal offenders) throughout the pendency of her application. Although granted Since J- was in hiding, finding him in Honduras political asylum in late October, she was not proved difficult. His representative had a phone released until mid-December. INS officials number of one of his uncles, who lived in blamed the delay on their inability to find and northern Honduras. After a week of trying to approve a sponsor for the girl. They cited the reach him, the representative spoke with the complex approval process for placement of uncle and explained the situation. The uncle had children smuggled into the United States, not seen or heard from his nephew since his explaining that smugglers often pose as sponsors. return. However, knowing that the boy’s life was in danger, the uncle embarked on an eight-day In this case, however, shortly after her arrival, the trip to southern Honduras, where J-’s family was girl had identified an uncle who resided in New then living. By the time he had reached southern York. Although he was willing to act as a Honduras, Hurricane Mitch had struck. The sponsor, her placement with him faced multiple family was not able to get J- to the Embassy until delays. After he visited the New York INS office late December 1999. Upon his arrival, confusion in September to straighten out the situation, an among Embassy officials and difficulty securing INS home study was ordered. However, this was appropriate travel documents further delayed J-’s not conducted until early December 1999.105 travel to the United States. During this time, J- was paralyzed with fear, and stayed in hiding. Bureaucratic inefficiencies and other shortcomings in the system can also conspire to send detained children He was finally able to return to the United States back to life-threatening situations. in January 2000 and received asylum shortly thereafter. Deported to Honduras by Mistake, Boy Finally Makes It Back Children venture alone to the United States for a variety of reasons.106 Many come to join parents or In late 1997, “J-,” a national of Honduras, was family members already here. Some arrive fleeing apprehended while attempting to cross the persecution or war in their home countries. Some southern border. At the age of 17, he had fled come because they have been neglected or his native country due to persecution by a gang. abandoned by their parents. Some children are sent J-’s troubles started when gang members stole a by their families to earn money to send back home. cow belonging to his family. Although he knew that the gang members might seek revenge, J- Their port of entry, age, immigration history, and the reported the incident to a judge. In retaliation, availability of INS bed space all determine where a the gang members attempted to kill him. During child will be placed. Some children are held at one attack, a bullet barely missed him. privately-run, state-licensed shelter-care facilities. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 21 Others, though, are not as fortunate. The INS has Fifteen-Year-Old Boy on Vacation, reported that it has access to 500 beds in nonprofit Wrongly Suspected of Having False shelters, group homes and foster care facilities.107 Yet, Documents, Spends More Than a Month this does not suffice. in Detention Shelter-care facilities are generally run by nonprofit agencies under contract with the INS. For example, “N-,” a 15-year-old native of Pakistan, came to the United States to spend his summer vacation there are approximately 60 beds in Chicago at the with relatives in California. Upon arrival at the International Children’s Center, administered by the Los Angeles International Airport, N- presented a Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human valid passport and tourist visa to immigration Rights. The population there consists mainly of officials. The officials asked him why he came to Chinese children, ages 13-17, who arrived at interna- the United States and N- stated the purpose of tional airports throughout the country. The children his visit. The officials did not believe him and take regular field trips, receive legal rights presen- suspected that he intended to remain in the tations at least once a week, and visits by legal United States permanently. They charged him representatives from the Midwest Immigrant Rights’ with inadmissibility for possession of improper Center at least twice a week. Similarly, all of the entry documents. He was transferred to INS approximately 50 Central American minors held at the custody without an opportunity to speak to the International Educational Services shelter in Harlingen, relatives awaiting his arrival. Texas have weekly access to legal advice, and take N- was detained at a state juvenile corrections recreational field trips. facility for more than one month. Twelve days Detention rarely serves a child’s best interests, partic- passed before his first immigration hearing. No ularly when family members or social service agencies interpreter was provided at the hearing, and can care for him or her. The settlement agreement of another week passed before N- was afforded a a class-action law suit mandates certain standards for second hearing. Not until two additional hearings did the IJ terminate proceedings, finding that his the detention of children. The settlement, reached documents were valid and he only intended to years ago in the case of Flores v. Reno,108 ended a visit family temporarily. challenge brought by several national organizations on behalf of unaccompanied minors in the Western Throughout his detention, N- endured deplorable Region of the INS. Under the Flores agreement, conditions. Officials detained him in a unit for minors held in juvenile detention facilities or other juveniles with criminal convictions. He was non-shelter environments must be “separated from confined in a small room. The staff spoke exclu- delinquent offenders” and must be transferred to sively in English and no interpreters were shelter-type facilities within three to five days, provided to explain the rules of the facility to depending on the availability of space.109 There are him, increasing the boy’s confusion and anxiety. many exceptions to this policy, however, that leave Some meals contained pork, which he does not hundreds of children unprotected. For example, INS eat due to religious convictions. Dietary options minors may be held indefinitely in corrections facilities were not provided to N-, and as a result he was often hungry. Daily exercise was mandatory. “in the event of an emergency influx.”110 In addition, Undernourished and weak, N- was threatened the INS has carte blanche to hold any minor who is with pepper spray when he was physically unable adjudicated or even suspected of being a delinquent to participate. Telephone calls were only allowed or a flight risk at a “juvenile detention facility.” sporadically after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and on The Flores agreement requires that even minors with Saturdays. This policy inhibited N- from main- criminal backgrounds be held in “separate accommo- taining contact with his relatives and informing his counsel of his treatment and scheduled dations” from those with adult criminal convictions. hearings. However, in practice, commingling regularly takes place. In Los Angeles, for example, INS minors are Many minors, although they have no criminal back- routinely mixed with the general criminal population. grounds, are held at government or privately-run Attempts to correct this situation with the Los Angeles correctional institutions. For example, the INS in Los district have been unsuccessful. Angeles places arriving minors with no suspected criminal involvement at Los Padrinos juvenile hall, a correctional facility run by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. Los Padrinos is a locked- 22 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. down, secure facility, where juvenile offenders are the Anaheim Asylum Office to interview the held separately from the INS minors. Although mother and child for possible legal representation. religious volunteers are present there, the children The attorney reported to the downtown head- never leave the facility on field trips or other quarters of the INS, where she first met the excursions. When moved into or out of the facility, terrified little girl. L- was silent, staying close by officials handcuff them. Attorneys may conduct indi- her mother, clinging to her stuffed animal. vidual visits, but not legal rights presentations. Pepper Just a few hours after the interview, the attorney spray is an official tool of discipline, and the children received a desperate phone call from the mother. report problems obtaining access to telephones. The mother had been separated from her child The situation is completely different at Casa San Juan, and taken to the INS San Pedro detention facility. a converted convent run by Catholic Charities two Even worse, she had not been informed of L-’s hours away in San Diego. There, children can remain fate or whereabouts. Through CLINIC’s inter- vention, the mother learned that her daughter with their mothers and keep some of their toys. They was being held at Los Padrinos, the juvenile may venture outside freely after school hours. corrections hall run by the Los Angeles County Attorneys and religious volunteers have access to all Probation Department. At Los Padrinos, L-’s rooms in the facility, including the bedrooms and the stuffed animal had been taken away from her kitchen. and she was given vaccination shots without Unfortunately, the INS does not have nearly enough understanding what they were. No one at the facility spoke her language, and most of the other shelters for families and unaccompanied minors. As a girls were almost twice her age. result, in a wholly unacceptable practice, it often separates children from their parents. In Los Angeles, Mother, daughter and father were separated for for example, the INS recently held two mothers at an more than six days until their credible fear INS detention center, while their children were sent to interviews took place. During that time, they a juvenile corrections facility. In one case, a Chinese could not see each other, and were only allowed mother arrived with her 10- and 12-year-old boys in to speak twice on the telephone. January 2000. Instead of placing the three at the San Children should never be separated from their parents. Diego shelter or a similar facility, the INS detained the They should never be confined with criminals in boys at Los Padrinos juvenile hall and the mother at juvenile prisons, much less with adults serving their the INS San Pedro detention facility. Officials did not criminal sentences. Detention of children should be tell the mother of the whereabouts of her sons, and avoided whenever possible. If necessary to confine denied her repeated pleas to contact them. In the children at all, they should be kept in shelter-care end, the woman became so distressed that she had a facilities appropriate to their unique needs and vulner- seizure and was hospitalized for several days. It was abilities. It represents a national disgrace that, after not until a month later that the mother and sons were years of mistreating children in its custody, the INS still reunited with the boys’ father in New York.111 separates children from their parents, still places Torn From Her Mother’s Arms: Eight- children in facilities for adjudicated delinquents, and Year-Old Czech Girl Forced into Juvenile still lacks adequate shelter space for all of those in its custody. Criminal Corrections Facility Eight-year-old “L-” arrived at the Los Angeles airport with both her parents in February 2000. The family had fled the Czech Republic, where their lives had been repeatedly threatened by the Russian mafia. After they arrived at the airport, they were kept in an INS holding area for three days. INS officials at the airport interviewed the family and determined that they were entitled to a credible fear interview. The INS sent the mother and daughter to a local hotel, and placed the father in INS detention. A CLINIC attorney was asked by REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 23 Not to be confused with indefinite detainees who can be released under our laws, “mandatory” detainees account for most of the growth in the INS system. The 1996 Immigration Act mandates the detention of various categories of immigrants while their removal hearings run their course. The largest group of mandatory detainees consists of non-citizens who have committed criminal offenses, but completed their prison terms. While some should be kept detained because they represent a danger to others, many “mandatory” detainees committed relatively minor crimes, often long ago, and enjoy strong ties to the United States. 1. Indefinite Detainees After a non-citizen receives a final order of removal, the INS normally has 90 days to effect his or her removal from the United States.116 If the INS cannot remove the immigrant during this time, he or she can be released from detention.117 However, this decision lies with the local INS district directors who can keep in detention persons that they determine represent a danger or a risk of flight.118 For many immigrants with final orders of removal, the 90 days come and go and the INS still has not deported or released them. Photo Courtesy: INS The INS refers to people in this situation as “lifers” or “unremovables.” Many spend years in INS custody. B. INDEFINITE, Unlike U.S. citizens who cannot be punished twice for the same offense, non-citizens sometimes receive an MANDATORY AND even harsher punishment by the INS. SECRET EVIDENCE One Conviction, Two Sentences DETAINEES In 1993, “Mr. R-” arrived in the United States after fleeing Cuba. He was granted parole in the According to INS officials, the United States detains United States. Under current immigration law, roughly 5,000 immigrants on any given night who Cuban nationals paroled into the country are cannot be deported because their countries of origin allowed to apply for permanent residence after will not take them back.112 Most indefinite detainees one year.119 Although Mr. R- never completed come from countries without diplomatic ties to the this process, he resettled in the United States and United States, with the largest single population began work as a mechanic, sending money on a coming from Cuba.113 As of August 1999, there were regular basis to his three children, ages 9, 12, and 1,750 Cubans in detention who arrived in the Mariel 17, in Cuba. boatlift,114 and almost 600 non-Mariel Cubans.115 Another large group of indefinite detainees came to Mr. R- was arrested at a party with friends. The the United States as refugees from Vietnam, Laos and host of the party had cocaine at his apartment. Cambodia, countries that now refuse to accept their Unfamiliar with the criminal justice system here, return. Others are stateless, or come from countries Mr. R- followed the instructions of his attorney that have no functional or central government. Still and pled no contest to a cocaine trafficking others have been granted relief under the Convention charge to avoid spending time in jail. In Against Torture, which prohibits the return of those September 1996, he was sentenced to three years who would be at risk of torture at home, but does not of supervised probation. necessarily lead to their release. A minority come from a growing list of countries that customarily In November 1996, when Mr. R- reported for accept the return of their nationals, but refuse to do probation, the INS took him into custody. As a so in individual cases. result of his conviction, the IJ ordered him 24 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. “excluded” (deported) a month later. However, for him as soon as he can be released. He wants because the United States does not have to get back to work and continue his life. diplomatic relations with Cuba, Mr. R- could not be deported. Instead he remained in detention for more than three years. During the summer of 1999, he received his first custody review. Despite assurances from his permanent resident brother that he would help Mr. R- find employment, Mr. R- was denied release. Not until March 2000 did the INS finally release him under an order of supervision. Although Mr. R- served no jail time for his criminal offense, he spent more than three years in detention because the INS could not deport him. In recent years, the issue of indefinite detention has become more widely publicized as strict immigration laws force more people into INS custody. On August 6, 1999, the INS took the important step of estab- Photo Courtesy: INS lishing a national policy regarding the provision of regular custody reviews for all indefinite detainees.120 In July 2000, the INS published a proposed rule to However, characteristically, certain district directors did codify an amended version of its policy regarding not implement the instructions from INS headquarters. review of indefinite detention cases.122 The proposed Advocates reported that in many sites INS detainees rule creates for all indefinitely detained immigrants a did not receive notice of their custody reviews, review process that tracks the one that has been in precluding their ability to marshall evidence in support place for Mariel Cubans since 1987. The apparent of their release.121 In other districts, the attorneys of objective of the proposed rule is laudable — that is, to record did not receive notice. In several sites, the INS transfer authority for custody reviews from the local did not provide notice of custody decisions within 30 district directors to a newly established “Headquarters days, as required by the instruction. In some places, Post-Order Detention Unit” (“HQPDU”) if the notices denying release included cursory or inadequate detainee has not been removed six months after explanations. Worst of all, in some cases, “indefinite receiving a final order of removal. However, the rule detainees” did not receive custody reviews at all. decreases the frequency of reviews from every six months (as stipulated in the August 6, 1999 policy INS Fails to Comply with Its Own instruction) to once a year. In addition, the rule elim- Instructions inates review of custody decisions by the BIA, completely insulating the process from non-INS review. In 1995, “Mr. U-,” a 22-year-old Cuban, came to the United States to start a new life. After The proposed rule also adopts the current policy of resettling in the United States, he obtained work sending written notices to the detainees at least 30 for a telephone company. In 1996 he was days in advance of each custody review. Although convicted of trafficking cocaine. He was the 30-day time-line is intended to provide detainees sentenced to three years in prison but was with time to gather documentation in support of their released early, after about two-and-a-half years, release requests, in practice 30 days is not enough for good behavior. He was transferred to INS time to obtain legal counsel or letters from often detention. While in detention, the INS reviewed uncooperative prisons regarding their institutional Mr. U-’s file to determine whether he should be records. After the INS custody review takes place, the released. Mr. U- received a denial letter (without detainee may still remain in detention for months any rationale) from the INS in mid-July 1999, which informed him that he would have a without receiving a response. custody review interview in six months. Under the new INS policy, Mr. U- should receive a While He Waits, His Family Suffers written notice 30 days before his interview. To “Mr. D-” originally came to California as a date, though, more than six months have passed refugee when he was four years old, fleeing the and he has still not received a notice of an communist government of Yugoslavia. His family interview. Mr. U- has a construction job waiting in the United States includes two children, his REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 25 father, and 11 siblings who are U.S. citizens. All on the duration of detention for those who cannot be of Mr. D-’s major life experiences (his education, deported. employment history and family life) have taken place in the United States. Unfortunately, in the Making matters worse, the INS has failed to pursue early 1990s, when his mother became terminally reintegration programs that would address some of ill, Mr. D- turned to drugs. Between 1994 and the concerns related to the release of indefinitely 1996, he was convicted four times for drug detained immigrants. Such programs could signifi- possession. In 1996, Mr. D- also pled guilty to cantly mitigate any risk of danger to the community petty theft. As a result, the INS placed Mr. D- in or of flight. They also cost far less than detention. deportation proceedings. Indeed, a refugee resettlement agency in New Orleans has begun to provide this service without any Mr. D- completed his criminal sentence in 1998, government funding. but the INS immediately took him into custody. Since Mr. B- was classified as an “aggravated felon,” he was required to be detained until his deportation hearing. At that hearing, in July 1999, Mr. D- made a claim under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that as a virtually assim- ilated American he would be subject to torture in the former Yugoslavia. At the time, anti- American feelings raged there due to the conflict in Kosovo. An IJ granted the application. Unfortunately for Mr. D-, while persons convicted of crimes who receive relief under the Convention Against Torture cannot be deported, neither are they necessarily eligible to be released from INS custody. Mr. D- applied for release, but the INS rejected Photo Courtesy: INS his request. This denial particularly hurt Mr. D-’s family, since he had been the principal source of An Alternative to Indefinite Detention financial support for his two children. In addition, and to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers his father suffered a stroke and paralysis on the right side of his body during Mr. D-’s detention. In September 1998, Human Rights Watch Mr. D-’s absence during this critical illness was published a stinging report on the mistreatment keenly felt. Eventually, in February 2000, seven of immigrants placed by the INS in local jails.126 months after he was granted deferral of removal, The report highlighted the particular problems Mr. D- was finally released. faced by immigrants in Louisiana parish jails. In As its stands, an indefinite detainee seeking to be response to the report, in October 1998, released must prove by clear and convincing evidence community based organizations in Louisiana that he or she is not a threat to society.123 In practice, established a working group to advocate for the this can be an impossible burden to meet, since INS just treatment of INS detainees. Participants have included the President of the Louisiana Hispanic officials often treat past criminality (a condition the Chamber of Commerce, the State Coordinator for detainee cannot change) as non-rebuttable evidence the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that he or she will be a danger in the future. In the State Refugee Coordinator, the Executive California, a federal district court appropriately Director of the Hispanic Apostolate, represen- reversed this burden, holding that the INS must tatives from Loyola University Law School and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a the Twomey Center for Peace and Justice, detainee poses a threat to the community or a flight Amnesty International, Mary Queen of Vietnam risk in order to continue detaining the individual.124 In Church, and Catholic Charities of New Orleans. fact, numerous courts have found indefinite detention, particularly for long-term permanent residents, to be The group has met, on a quarterly basis, with the unconstitutional on due process grounds.125 However, local INS district director and local prison officials it should not take a law suit to release an indefinitely to discuss concerns regarding INS detainees at the detained immigrant. There should be a fixed ceiling New Orleans Parish Prison. As a result of this dialogue, in August 1999, the INS agreed to 26 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. release certain indefinite detainees to Catholic documents for his deportation to Nigeria, he Charities of New Orleans. spent seven years in six different INS detention centers. To qualify for release, an indefinite detainee must have a sponsor. If no family member can be Finally, in September 1999, the INS released Mr. identified, the INS determines whether it would R- to Catholic Charities. He spent his first two be appropriate to release the detainee to a weeks in a homeless shelter until Catholic halfway house. If space is not available, the INS Charities found him an affordable hotel. Catholic contacts Catholic Charities of New Orleans which Charities assisted Mr. R- with his housing schedules an appointment to interview and expenses until October 1999, when he secured a screen the detainee. The agency reviews the full time job as a steward at a local hotel. Three detainee’s criminal background, and explains its and a half months after his release, Mr. R- moved services and expectations. Once a decision has into his own apartment. His family has relocated been made to accept a detainee, the INS and from Texas to rejoin him, and his wife is currently Catholic Charities coordinate a release date. pregnant with their second child. Mr. R- recently enrolled in a program to study management at Catholic Charities arranges for housing prior to the hotel. the detainee’s release. It then picks up the immigrant and gives him an orientation to the Since May 1999, the INS has also released 18 program and to the community. Due to a lack of asylum-seekers to the Catholic Charities program. funding for the program, Catholic Charities Former Catholic Charities clients have acted as initially housed participants in shelters for the sponsors for some of these persons, providing homeless until they could afford their own them with housing and even helping them to find apartments. Subsequently, Catholic Charities employment. Two of the 18 asylum-seekers were was able to rent rooms from the local YMCA for granted asylum prior to their release and referred program participants. Catholic Charities’ staff to Catholic Charities for resettlement assistance. assists the participants in finding employment and accessing social services. Programs for released lifers, like the one run by Catholic Charities of New Orleans, should be Since August 1999, the INS has released 21 expanded nationally and federally funded. indefinite detainees to this program. Of these, Unfortunately, the one federally-funded program that only one has been rearrested. This occurred existed for released indefinite detainees has been because he attacked his roommate. Catholic defunded. This program enjoyed a multi-year track Charities reported the attack to the INS, who record of success with one of the INS’s most histor- then arrested the detainee. Of the 21 indefinite ically difficult populations, Mariel Cubans. Not detainees who have been released, all but three surprisingly, the program cost significantly less to are employed. The unemployed include two operate than the continued detention of these immi- disabled men and one 72-year-old man. The grants. program’s coordinator characterizes the former indefinite detainees as independent and Successful Program to Reintegrate resourceful. Their prior life and work experiences Mariel Cubans Defunded in the United States make their transition into society a smooth one. In general, Catholic From 1987 to 1999, Migration and Refugee Charities’ staff have found the released “lifers” to Services (MRS) of the United States Catholic be among their easiest clients. Conference (USCC) administered a successful program to reintegrate and resettle “Mariel” The program recently helped Mr. R-, a Nigerian Cubans who had been released from national, to re-establish himself after seven years confinement. Prior to admitting detainees into in INS detention. Mr. R- came to the United the program, MRS verified housing arrangements States in 1986. Although married to a U.S. for them and, as necessary, determined the suit- citizen and the father of a nine-year-old U.S. ability of these arrangements through home citizen child, Mr. R- never became a permanent studies. The program carefully reviewed all the resident. In 1989, he was convicted of information available about potential participants, possession and delivery of a controlled substance. including psychiatric and psychosocial evalu- After serving seven months of a seven year ations, and criminal justice history. It did not sentence, he was transferred to INS custody. accept persons with excessively violent or sex- Because the INS could not secure travel related criminal histories. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 27 Participants received a range of intensive services gation and there may be other factors particular to the that included: individualized, goal-driven individual such as the likelihood of absconding and planning; orientation and reception into the lack of co-operation, which may justify detention for a community; orientation of the sponsor (normally period. Without such factors detention may be family members); follow-up with employers; considered arbitrary, even if entry was illegal….”131 weekly monitoring meetings; substance abuse Such statements by the Committee should be taken as and other counseling; and assistance with voca- evidence that the United States may be violating both tional school enrollment. The program could and Article 9 and its customary law obligations.132 did recommend parole revocation for clients who violated the conditions of their parole, failed to meet the program’s requirements, engaged in illegal activity, or otherwise posed a threat to the community. This feature significantly reduced the potential risk of recidivism by participants. In its final years, the program served an average of 50 to 60 Cubans a year, with a success rate of roughly 75 percent. Not surprisingly, the program cost significantly less than detention. Its success argued for expansion to other popu- lations. Yet, in July 1999, the program was suspended on the grounds that the INS could meet the needs of released detainees through contracts with half-way houses. In fact, INS “indefinite detainees” approved for release often remain detained for months or even years while they wait for openings in half-way houses.127 Nor do half-way houses offer programs tailored to the unique needs of these populations. Photo Courtesy: INS Beyond the hardship it causes, indefinite detention may also violate the international obligations of the United States. In 1992, for example, the United 2. Mandatory Detention States became a party to the United Nations’ In theory, mandatory detention serves as a tool to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prevent immigrants from absconding or endangering (ICCPR), a document that many legal scholars assert society. In practice, it has stripped the INS and IJs of has risen in its entirety to the level of “customary” the discretion to consider the particular circumstances international law.128 As such, it may have the force of the detainee and his or her family. Under the 1996 of being binding even on countries that have not Immigration Act, for example, IJs cannot release a ratified it. Article 9 of the ICCPR provides that “[n]o detainee in order to allow him or her to support a U.S. one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention.” citizen spouse or child, even if the detainee has been The current practice of detaining “lifers” indefinitely, rehabilitated. The law incorrectly assumes that all without binding regulations or laws regarding people with criminal convictions are a danger to standards for release, could be considered arbitrary society and, as a result, forces the INS to detain many under international standards. who pose no threat. In effect, the law formalizes what has long been the practice of many INS district The United Nations’ Human Rights Committee, which directors to deny release based on the detainee’s past exists to monitor compliance with the ICCPR, has criminality, whatever the factors favoring release.133 explicitly stated that immigration control is covered by Article 9.129 Under U.S. law, this interpretation may The law now requires the INS to arrest and detain be viewed as authoritative, perhaps even binding.130 almost all non-citizens with criminal convictions, The Committee has also recently ruled that the regardless of when the conviction occurred. It also detention of a Cambodian in Australia for more than does not take into account how long ago the four years was “arbitrary,” stating “detention should immigrant finished his or her jail sentence. After a not continue beyond the period for which the State non-citizen pays his or her debt to society, the INS can provide appropriate justification. For example, the must arrest and detain them, often for periods that fact of illegal entry may indicate a need for investi- exceed their prison sentence. 28 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. Immigrants convicted and released from prison before During the first two months of his detention, Mr. October 9, 1998 are eligible to request release from B-’s daughter drove his wife two hours to visit INS detention.134 All non-citizens released from jail or him and to attend his court hearings. In order to prison on or after October 9, 1998, however, are inel- make these weekly trips, Mr. B-’s daughter had to igible for bond. They must be detained throughout miss several days of work. As a result, the their immigration proceedings, which can drag on for daughter, who is married and has two children, lost her job in October 1998. She remained months and even years. unemployed for four months. During this time, Mandatory detention tears families apart. Permanent the family’s financial responsibilities fell solely on residents who have lived in the United States for years her husband who could not find full-time work. languish in detention, apart from their families, while their cases pass through the immigration court system. While detained, Mr. B- missed the birthdays of Exacerbating matters, the INS can detain foreign five of his six U.S. citizen grandchildren, as well as Thanksgiving and Christmas with his family. In nationals in any location it chooses. Accordingly, if it addition, Mr. B- suffered severe pain from arrests a non-citizen in Florida, it can transfer that arthritis. He had previously undergone two oper- person to Louisiana, regardless of the fact that his or ations: one to insert a piece of metal to connect her family is in Florida. As a result, the immigrant will his hip to his leg; the other to treat his severe be effectively denied visitation by his or her family, carpal tunnel syndrome. Although Mr. B- posed who cannot afford to make the trip from Florida to no threat to anyone, had not been convicted of a Louisiana. Separation from loved ones can lead to violent crime, and had completed his probation, depression, anxiety, and loneliness for the detainee, as the INS did not release him until early 1999, and well as for his or her family. It can also lead to the only then as the result of his medical condition. family’s impoverishment. In April 1999, the INS withdrew its appeal and Mr. B-’s case was closed. Nonviolent Detainee Separated From Mandatory detention forces the INS to arrest and Family detain petty offenders who represent neither a threat to their communities or flight risks. “Mr. B-,” a 59-year-old from Mexico, has lived in the United States as a permanent resident for more than 33 years. He has a permanent Mandatory Detention Fills INS Detention resident wife, an adopted U.S. citizen son, two System with Nonviolent People U.S. citizen daughters, and six U.S. citizen grand- “Mr. F-” is a 29-year-old from Sudan. In 1993, children. In 1994, Mr. B- was convicted of failing he came to the United States as a refugee. His to prevent a felony, in this case the distribution of father held a prominent position in a political less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The judge group that opposed the government in Sudan; sentenced him to three years of probation, but Mr. F- was in danger of persecution because of did not consider the crime serious enough to his father’s activities. After resettling in sentence him to prison time. Tennessee, Mr. F- worked steadily as a laborer in warehouses. He filed tax returns each year. In 1998, while Mr. B- was returning to the United Almost three years after his arrival, Mr. F- was States from a visit abroad, the INS discovered his convicted of simple possession of crack cocaine 1994 conviction. He was allowed to enter the and sentenced to probation. In early 1998, the country as a parolee, but after a check of his INS placed him in removal proceedings for having records, the INS terminated Mr. B-’s parole and violated a controlled substance law. Although instituted removal proceedings against him. The Mr. F- was not a danger, the INS detained him in agency charged Mr. B- with conspiring with rural Louisiana throughout the proceedings. In others to traffic in a controlled substance and September 1999, the BIA granted Mr. F- with- attempted to remove him from the United States. holding of removal, but the INS did not release Ultimately, the IJ terminated proceedings against him until December 1999. In total, he spent 21 him, finding that his prior conviction did not months in custody. make him an illicit drug trafficker under the law. However, the INS appealed the decision. As a result of mandatory detention, Mr. B remained detained throughout the pendency of his case, five months in total. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 29 No Jail Time, but More Than a Year in so counter-intuitive and expansive a reading of this INS Detention law apparently surprised federal jurists, who consis- tently rejected the INS’s position.136 In response to “Mr. G-”, a 26-year-old Tanzanian, fled his more than a dozen adverse decisions by federal homeland after finding his father, a prominent courts, the INS reversed course in July 1999, reading member of an opposition political movement, “mandatory detention” to apply only to those brutally murdered by the government. After his released from criminal custody on or after October 9, father’s death, his mother went into hiding; Mr. 1998.137 Up to that point, it had wasted its scarce G- has not heard from her since. A relative detention resources on hundreds of immigrants it did helped Mr. G- escape the country on a student not need to detain. visa and he arrived in the United States in January 1998. Unfortunately, after he resettled in In addition, the INS has failed to pursue alternative Maryland, his relatives in Tanzania encountered forms of detention that have proven to be effective in financial difficulties and could no longer afford to the criminal justice system. “Mandatory detention,” pay his tuition. Desperate for tuition money, he for example, need not preclude a rigorous system of accepted the offer of two men to open a bank home detention through electronic monitoring. Not account and deposit phony checks for them. He only would expanded use of such a system be cost- knew his actions were wrong, but believed they would earn him enough money to cover his effective, it would be a humane alternative for college tuition and comply with his student visa. non-citizens who enjoy strong family ties in the United Instead, he was arrested. Mr. G- was convicted States, while accomplishing the same goals as “hard” of attempted theft of less than $300 and received detention. a one year suspended sentence and 11 months of Although not a direct analogy to “civil” confinement, probation. After his conviction in December the federal pre-trial release program has enjoyed 1998, the INS arrested Mr. G- and placed him in detention. He applied for withholding of removal significant success in assuring court appearances and and relief from removal under the Convention protecting the community. These are the same goals Against Torture. His case is currently on appeal. served by immigration detention. In FY 1998, only To date, he has been in INS detention for more 4.5 percent of criminal defendants, who had been than one year. conditionally released under this program, failed to appear for their trials.138 Only one percent Mandatory detention straight-jackets the INS, committed a violation while released.139 The precluding it from making common-sense decisions on Department of Justice (“DOJ”) defines “conditional the best use of its scarce detention space. It has release” as “any combination of restrictions that are contributed mightily to the crisis in the INS detention deemed necessary to guarantee the defendant’s system. At the same time, the INS has failed to appearance at trial or the safety of the manage the new mandatory detention regime in a community.”140 Thus, as DOJ officials have informed way that minimizes its damage. CLINIC, “conditional release” could include home Under the law, “mandatory detention” for those detention. In fact, at least one federal court has made facing removal on criminal and national security this connection, ordering the INS to transfer a grounds takes place “when the alien is released, “mandatory detainee” into the tethering program of without regard to whether the alien is released on U.S. Pretrial Services.141 In effect, the court found parole, supervised release, or probation, and without that “home detention” satisfied the mandates of regard to whether the alien may be arrested or immigration detention. Unfortunately, the INS has imprisoned again for the same offense.”135 By its failed to pursue successful alternative forms of plain language, this provision would seem to apply detention, despite unprecedented pressure on its only to persons released from criminal custody on or struggling system. after October 9, 1998, when this provision went into effect. Instead, the INS initially interpreted the “released” language, triggering mandatory detention, to refer to INS custody. Under this interpretation, immigrants picked up by the INS on or after October 9, 1998, even if they had long before been released from criminal custody, would have been subject to mandatory detention. The fact that the INS advanced 30 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. federal judges. To begin such a proceeding, the INS must first submit an application that establishes probable cause that an individual is an “alien terrorist” and that the use of the normal removal proceedings would pose a risk to national security. The individual is entitled only to an unclassified “summary” of the secret evidence. Even if such a summary is not provided, however, the proceedings can still go forward, and the person will be forced to present a defense without knowledge of the INS’s case. The INS detains all non-citizens who are subject to these provisions. As of this writing, more than 20 immigrants, mostly of Middle-Eastern descent, are facing deportation on the basis of secret evidence.147 Photo Courtesy: INS Jailed for 19 Months on Ex-Wife’s 3. Detention Based on Secret Undisclosed Allegations Evidence Hany Kiareldeen, a 31-year-old Palestinian, was detained for 19 months without being charged It is a bedrock principle of our constitutional with any crime. Rather, he was charged with democracy that persons accused of a crime must be being “removable” on the basis of secret afforded the opportunity to examine and explain the evidence. Mr. Kiareldeen was arrested on March evidence against them. Under our criminal justice 26, 1998 for overstaying his visitor’s visa. He had system, it would be unthinkable to arrest, convict, and married a U.S. citizen who had petitioned for him imprison a person based on secret evidence. Yet, our to become a permanent resident. Ordinarily this immigration laws provide for the removal and filing would have allowed Mr. Kiareldeen to live “administrative” detention of non-citizens — and work in the United States during the many sanctions which can be every bit as severe as a years that such applications can take to process. criminal sentence — based precisely on such evidence. Mr. Kiareldeen was employed as a manager of an electronics store. However, the INS detained him As it stands, an immigrant may be excluded from based on allegations by his ex-wife that in 1993 admission to the United States on national security he hosted a meeting at his home in Nutley, New grounds if the INS or a consular officer has “reason to Jersey, which was attended by one of the World believe” that he or she intends to engage in Trade Center bombing co-conspirators. Several espionage or sabotage, has engaged in terrorist acquaintances, however, testified that Mr. activity or intends to engage in terrorist activity.142 Kiareldeen was apolitical. Immigrants “suspected” of being inadmissible for espionage activities, terrorist activities, or other foreign In Mr. Kiareldeen’s case, the INS refused to produce witnesses to support its allegations of policy considerations can also be excluded.143 terrorism, even when ordered to do so by the IJ. The law also allows the INS to remove an individual Upon reviewing the summary of the evidence, from the United States based on secret evidence. In the federal district court found it “lacking in general, persons in removal proceedings must be either detail or attribution to reliable sources given a “reasonable opportunity to examine which would shore up its credibility. More evidence” submitted by the INS. This right, however, important however, is the apparent conclusion that even the government does not find its own does not entitle them to examine “national security allegations sufficiently serious to commence information.”144 Once an individual is found to be criminal proceedings.”148 “removable,” the INS may use classified evidence to deny his or her application to remain in the United Ultimately, in April 1999, an IJ who reviewed the States.145 secret evidence concluded that Mr. Kiareldeen did Finally, the laws allow for the use of an “Alien not live in Nutley at the time, and that the Terrorist Removal Court” to remove suspected government had not shown that he was inad- missible on national security grounds. The INS terrorists from the United States through the use of appealed and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. secret evidence.”146 The court is comprised of five REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 31 In October 1999, a federal court ordered the INS the judge found that Mr. Najjar had been subject to release Mr. Kiareldeen. He was finally released to an “unfair” and “tainted” process, she from detention on October 25, 1999.149 declined to order Mr. Najjar released on bond.154 His next bond hearing is scheduled for late Arrested at Mosque - Three Years in August, 2000.155 Detention Although federal courts have increasingly found the Nasser Ahmed, an Egyptian immigrant, spent use of secret evidence unconstitutional,156 and there more than three years in INS detention based on are efforts in Congress to pass legislation that would secret evidence. For most of that time he was in repeal the law,157 this is scant comfort to the people solitary confinement. Mr. Ahmed, a devout who remain detained and to their families who Muslim, was arrested at his mosque in April struggle in their absence. 1996. The only evidence against him that the INS disclosed was a one-sentence statement that he belonged to an unnamed terrorist organi- zation. His attorneys could not defend him against such a vague allegation and Mr. Ahmed was ordered deported. When the attorneys filed a federal lawsuit, the INS was forced to turn over some of its secret evidence. The INS alleged that Mr. Ahmed had sent a message to the international press from Sheik Rahman, who was convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. His attorneys demonstrated that there was no evidence Mr. Ahmed ever transmitted such a message.150 Mr. Ahmed was released on a bond in November 1999, but he said that he “still ha[s] no idea who accused [him] or why they accused [him].” Although he had worked as an electrical engineer before he was detained, he lost his job and will have to find new employment.151 The INS is still seeking to deport him. Mr. Ahmed is married and has three children. Teacher Separated from Wife and Daughters for Three Years Mazen Al-Najjar, a Palestinian, is married and has three U.S. citizen daughters. He worked as a teacher and translator in Florida for 18 years before the INS detained him based on secret evidence. His attorneys believe that the secret Photo Courtesy: Alan Pogue evidence showed that he worked at the same university think-tank as prominent supporters of the Palestinian cause. His wife has suffered C. CONCLUSION greatly during this time, and his daughters are The legislation imposing mandatory detention has growing up without him.152 The children must caused immense — and unnecessary — suffering. But talk to their father through glass; they cannot even in those areas where the INS retains the touch him. The family has no money and is discretion to release individuals, it has failed to do so being supported by Mr. Najjar’s sister and in a consistent or generous manner. It has been brother-in-law. Mr. Najjar’s wife is ashamed to particularly remiss in its failure to explore alternatives tell co-workers where her husband has been for to detention for vulnerable detainees and others who, almost three years, and she worries that the FBI particularly with appropriate supervision, would will get her fired from her job.153 In late May, represent neither a flight risk or a danger to the 2000, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that Mr. Najjar must be given a new hearing. Although community. It has also failed to explore cost-effective, 32 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. alternative forms of detention for those subject to G Mandatory detention, which strips from the INS mandatory detention. and IJs the ability to make custody determinations based on the totality of a person’s situation, Just as the problems in the INS detention system have should be eliminated in all but the most egregious been exhaustively documented, a strong consensus has criminal and national security cases. emerged among human rights and immigrant advocacy groups on the steps necessary to fix the system. G The INS should aggressively pursue alternative forms of detention for those subject to G The INS detention system, long plagued by the mandatory detention, including home detention inability of INS headquarters to enforce its policies through electronic monitoring and “tether” at the local district level (much less in its contract programs. detention facilities) must be centralized. Strict accountability must be established for violations G All INS detention facilities — whether INS Service of INS detention policies. Release decisions Processing Centers, federal prisons, for-profit should not be subject to the whims, biases, and prisons, or local jails — should be subject to the idiosyncracies of INS district directors. same minimum standards related to conditions of confinement. These standards should be appro- G Bona fide asylum-seekers, particularly those who priate to “civil” detainees, rather than to establish a “credible fear” in the expedited prisoners serving criminal sentences. The model removal process, should not be detained. The standards developed by the American Bar INS should develop and implement uniform Association constitute a good starting point and release policies for these cases. It should also should be uniformly applied. develop supervised release and alternative-to- detention programs for all asylum-seekers in its G The INS should adopt and implement an effective custody. If asylum-seekers must be detained at system of oversight to assure the appropriate all, this should only be on a short-term basis in treatment of detainees it has placed in for-profit facilities appropriate to their unique needs and prisons and local jails. If INS contractors resist vulnerabilities. Asylum-seekers should never be implementation of appropriate standards or confined in prisons. rigorous oversight, their facilities should not be used. G Children should never be detained in facilities for juvenile offenders and should never be separated G Detention based on the use of secret evidence from their parents. If necessary to detain them violates bedrock constitutional principles and at all, they should be kept in shelter care facilities should never occur. which offer programs tailored to their unique vulnerabilities and developmental needs. The INS G The EOIR should follow up on its successful pilot should significantly expand its shelter-care project and fund “legal rights” presentations for facilities for immigrant families and unaccom- all persons in INS custody. Such presentations panied minors. Every unaccompanied minor in would benefit detainees, increase the efficiency of INS custody should be assigned a “special court proceedings, and reduce the burdens on the guardian” to shepherd them through the immi- INS detention system. “Rights presentations” gration process. The “best interests” of the child would be a humane and cost-effective feature of should govern all placement decisions. a reformed detention system. G The INS should abide by its own gender As the population of administrative detainees guidelines and avoid detaining women who make continues to increase, the United States must decide if gender-based asylum claims. it can afford – economically and morally – to lock up persons who could be reunited with families and live G The great majority of indefinite detainees should as productive members of society. At this point, the be released within the 90 day statutory removal need for the system’s reform can scarcely be disputed. period. While it may be necessary to detain For too long, the INS detention system has dishonored certain non-citizens beyond 90 days, an absolute our heritage as a nation of immigrants. time limit should be established for the release of all detainees. Intensive reintegration and supervised release programs, to include parole revocation for those failing to meet the programs’ terms, should be provided for all indefinite detainees. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 33 E N D N O T E S 1. Amnesty International, “Lost In The Labyrinth: Detention of 10. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, “A Asylum-Seekers” (July 1999) [hereinafter “Lost in the Cry for Help: Chinese Women in INS Detention” (March Labyrinth”]; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 1995). “Refugees Behind Bars: The Imprisonment of Asylum 11. This seems an obvious point, but one blurred by the Seekers in the Wake of the 1996 Immigration Act” (August language used to describe the INS system For example, 1999) [hereinafter “Refugees Behind Bars”]. courts view removal proceedings as “civil” in nature, though 2. Human Rights Watch, “Slipping through the Cracks: their end (banishment to often dangerous countries) and Unaccompanied Children Detained by the U.S. Immigration means (imprisonment) can be every bit as harsh as criminal and Naturalization Service” (April 1997) [hereinafter sentences. The largest category of detainees, pejoratively “Slipping through the Cracks”]. labelled “criminal aliens,” encompasses long-term permanent residents who committed relatively minor trans- 3. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, gressions, like shop-lifting, and long ago served whatever “Liberty Denied: Women Seeking Asylum Imprisoned in the criminal sentence they may have received. INS “processing” United States” (April 1997) [hereinafter “Liberty Denied”]. or “detention” centers connote short-term custody, but hold 4. Kerwin, “Throwing Away the Key: Lifers in INS Custody,” 75 thousands of foreign-born persons for indefinite periods of Interpreter Releases 649 (May 11, 1998); Morris, “INS time, often for years. Criminal Alien Review Plan for Nonremovable Detainees,” 3 12. Pub L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (September 30, 1996). Benders Immigration Bulletin 1098 (November 1, 1998); Harr, “The Mariel Cubans: The Forgotten Lifers,” Migration 13. INA § 236(c)(1); 8 CFR § 236.1(c). World, Vol XXVII, No. 5 (1999). 14. INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(ii)-(iii)(IV); 8 CFR § 235.3(b)(2)(iii) and 5. Kerwin and Wheeler, “The Detention Mandates of the 1996 (4)(ii). Immigration Act: An Exercise in Overkill,” 75 Interpreter 15. INA § 235(b)(2)(A); 8 CFR § 235.3 (c). Releases 1433 (October 19, 1998). 16. INA § 241(a)(1)(C)(2); 8 CFR § 241.3. 6. Human Rights Watch, “Locked Away: Immigration Detainees in Jails in the United States” (September 1998) 17. Pub L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996). [hereinafter “Immigration Detainees in Jails”]; Florida 18. Kerwin, Acer, and Leopold, “The Detention of Noncitizens: Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc, “Florida County Jails: INS’s An Overview of the Law, Its Implementation, and Legal Secret Detention World” (November 1997). Strategies”, 1999-2000 Immigration and Nationality Law 7. Kerwin, “Detention: Our Sad National Symbol,” In Defense Handbook, Volume II, Advanced Practice (American of the Alien, Vol XX (1997) at 128-142. Immigration Lawyers’ Association 1999) at 34, 35-38. 8. Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc, “Cries for Help: 19. INA § 101(a)(43). Medical Care at Krome Service Processing Center and in 20. US. Committee for Refugees, “World Refugee Survey 2000” Florida’s County Jails” (December 1999) [hereinafter (2000) at 2-4. “Medical Care at Krome Service Processing Center and in Florida’s County Jails”]. 21. United Nations’ Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 9. Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc, “Krome’s Invisible 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; United Nations Protocol Relating to Prisoners: Cycles of Abuse and Neglect” (July 1996); the Status of Refugees, opened for signature January 31, Immigration and Naturalization Service Assessment Team, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention Facility Operated by ESMOR, Inc.,” (Interim Report) (July 1995) 22. Pub L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 103 (1980). [hereinafter “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention 23. Opened for signature Feb 4, 1985, S. TREATY DOC. NO. Facility”]; American Civil Liberties Union, “Justice Detained: 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Conditions at the Varick Street Immigration Detention Center” (1993) [hereinafter “the Varick Street Immigration 24. The 1996 Immigration Act, § 604 (1996). Detention Center”]. 25. Id. 34 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. 26. 8 CFR § 208.4(a)(5) (1997). 40. Root, National Director, Appearance Assistance Program, Vera Institute for Justice, “The Appearance Assistance 27. Musalo, Gibson, Fingert, and Taylor, “Expedited Removal Program: An Alternative to Detention for Noncitizens in U.S. Study: Report on the First Three Years of Implementation of Immigration Removal Proceedings,” presentation at the 8th Expedited Removal” (May 2000), Analysis of INS Office of Migration Policy Forum (May 3, 2000). Policy and Planning Data as of 11/24/99, Tables 1-26. 41. Id. 28. Id. 42. Id. 29. Musalo, Anker, and Taylor, “The Expedited Removal Study: Report on the First Year of Implementation,” 75 Interpreter 43. Id. Releases 973, 974 (July 17, 1998). 44. “The Varick Street Immigration Detention Center” at 15-16. 30. Federal Document Clearing House, Political Transcript 45. Interview with Natalie Audage, Asylum Network (February 1, 2000). Coordinator, Physicians for Human Rights (January, 2000). 31. Id. 46. “Lost in the Labyrinth” at 51. 32. Two asylum seekers recently filed a federal civil rights 47. McChesney, “The Mother Teresa of Immigration lawsuit alleging that they suffered beatings and other Detention,” America Magazine (April 24, 1999). inhumane treatment at the Elizabeth, New Jersey detention center. The abuse included beatings, being chained to a bed 48. Associated Press, “New York INS Detention Site Accused of in a small cell for hours with no water, and isolation in an Safety Violations” (February 24, 2000). unsanitary cell which “had its walls, floor, and doorway 49. Memorandum from Michael A Pearson, INS Executive smeared with human feces and urine.” See, Llorente, Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, to INS “Asylum Seekers Sue Elizabeth Jailers,” Bergen Record Regional Directors, “INS Detention Guidelines” (October 7, (February 25, 2000). See also, Llorente, “Asylum Seekers 1998). Live in Jail-Like Conditions,” Bergen Record (April 11, 1999); Viglucci, “Inside Krome: Ending years of abuses is a 50. INA § 212(d)(5)(A) daunting task,” Miami Herald (February 28, 1999). 51. See, Wheeler and McClenahan, “CLINIC Report #5 on 33. Articles 31 and 26 respectively, Vienna Convention on the Credible Fear/Expedited Removal,” 3 Bender’s Immigration Law of Treaties, Nov. 1, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. [here- Bulletin 417 (May 1, 1998); Wheeler and McClenahan, inafter Vienna Convention]. The United States has not “CLINIC Reports on Implementation of Expedited Removal ratified this convention, but the concepts described in these and Credible Fear Screening Process,” 2 Bender’s two clauses have long been asserted by scholars as rising to Immigration Bulletin 949 (November 15, 1997); Wheeler the level of customary international law. and Morris, “The Credible Fear/Expedited Removal Process,” 2 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 627 (August 34. United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1997); Wheeler, “INS’s Implementation of Expedited Article 14(1), GA. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d. Sess., at Removal: The Credible Fear Interview Process,” 2 Bender’s 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948). Immigration Bulletin 487 (June 15, 1997). 35. UNHCR Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers (1995); 52. Kerwin and Wheeler, “The Detention Mandates of the 1996 “Detention Of Asylum Seekers And Refugees: The Immigration Act: An Exercise in Overkill,” 75 Interpreter Framework, The Problem And Recommended Practice,” Releases 1433, 1439 (October 19, 1998). Executive Committee, Standing Committee, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 15th Meeting, UN. Doc. 53. Id. EC/49/SC/CRP.13 (1999). 54. Id. 36. Id. at ¶ 1. 55. At a March 30, 2000 INS liaison meeting, the New Jersey 37. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (expressing district director reported that in FY 1999, there were 995 deference to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Refugee detained cases at the Elizabeth Detention Center. The Convention.). district director clarified that the vast majority were asylum- seekers arriving at airports without proper documents, who 38. See, eg., “Lost in the Labyrinth.” had passed their credible fear interviews. Of these, 90 were 39. The Vera Institute of Justice, “The Appearance Assistance granted parole for a release rate of approximately nine Program: Attaining Compliance with Immigration Laws percent in 1999. Through Community Supervision (1998). REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 35 56. Id; At a June 16, 1999 liaison meeting, the New York INS 76. See generally, “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract district provided statistics that indicated that, since the Detention Facility”; “Immigration Detainees in Jails” at 60- Queens Wackenhut detention facility had opened, 285 of 63. the 1054 asylum seekers (27 percent) determined to have a 77. “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention Facility” at credible fear had been paroled by the the district office. 15; “The Varick Street Immigration Detention Center” at 57. “Lost in the Labyrinth” at 25. 13-14; Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc., “Krome North Service Processing Center: Update on Conditions 58. Id. (Draft)” (March 1996) at 12-14; Viglucci, “Investigation at 59. Statistics provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Krome: Officer Accused of Using Stun Gun,” Miami Herald Review (December 13, 1999). (May 5, 1997); “Liberty Denied” at 15-17. 60. INA § 292; 8 USC § 1362. 78. The Associated Press, “Jury Convicts One Jail Guard, Acquits Another in Detainee Abuse,” (April 28, 1998); 61. INS Office of General Counsel, “Funding of a Pilot Project Smothers, “Three Jail Guards Guilty of Abusing for the Representation of Aliens in Immigration Immigrants,” New York Times (March 7, 1998). Proceedings” (December 21, 1995). [hereinafter “No Cost to the Government Memorandum”]. 79. Smothers, “Immigrants Tell of Mistreatment by New Jersey Jail Guards,” New York Times (February 6, 1998). 62. 5 USC § 3106 (1996). 80. “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention Facility” at 5. 63. “No Cost to the Government Memorandum” 81. Id. at 6. See also, “Liberty Denied” at 15 (“Detainees 64. Id. reported physical and verbal abuse, frequent strip searches, 65. Hinken, Program Analysis Staff, Executive Office for and excessive use of prolonged isolation, as punishment for Immigration Review, “Evaluation of the Rights minor infractions.”) Presentations” (December 1999). 82. “Immigration Detainees in Jails” at 61-63. 66. According to the EOIR, in FY 99 53 percent of all immi- 83. 8 CFR § 208.6. gration court cases were unrepresented at the time of completion. Statistics available at 84. 8 CFR § 236.1(e). www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/compGraphOct5.pdf. 85. Mr. B- requests that his country of origin not be printed. It 67. “The Florence Project Report,” Florence Immigrant and is not one of the countries whose consulates the United Refugee Rights Project, Vol 3, Issue 1 (February 2000) at 1. States is required to notify pursuant to 8 CFR § 236.1(e). 68 . INA § 240(b)(2)(A)(iii). 86. See the UNHCR’s website at wwwunhcr.ch/fdrs/ga99/women.htm. 69. “Medical Care at Krome Service Processing Center and in Florida’s County Jails”; “Lost in the Labyrinth” at 64; 87. Ms. Kassindja’s story is poignantly told in Kassindja, “Do “Immigration Detainees in Jails” at 56-63; “Liberty Denied” They Hear you When you Cry?” (Delacorte Press 1998). at 19-23; “The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention 88. Matter of Kasinga, 21 I & N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Facility” at 21-24; “The Varick Street Immigration Detention Center” at 44-48. 89. Abankwah v. INS, 185 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir. 1999). 70. “Immigration Detainees in Jails” at 56. 90. Gilbert, “Family Violence and the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Immigration Briefings (March 1998) at 15. 71. Id. 91. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook 72. Letter from Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General, on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Civil Rights Division, to Mr. J. Milton Pittman, Chair of the under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating Board of County Commissioners, Jackson County, Florida to the Status of Refugees, paragraph 65 (1988). (March 30, 2000). 92. Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, “Guidelines on 73. “Lost in the Labyrinth” at 64. Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related 74. Id. Persecution” (March 9, 1993). 75. Viglucci, “Immigration Law Packs Detainees into Krome,” 93. Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Considerations for Miami Herald (October 17, 1999). Asylum Officers Adjudicating Asylum Claims From Women” (May 26, 1995). 36 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. 94. Matter of R-A-, Int Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999). 113. Kerwin, “Throwing Away the Key: Lifers in INS Custody,” 75 Interpreter Releases 649 (May 11, 1998); Harr, “The 95. Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Guidelines for Mariel Cubans: The Forgotten Lifers,” Migration World, Vol. Children’s Asylum Claims” (December 10, 1998). XXVII, No. 5 (1999). 96. Loose, “Most ‘Unaccompanied Minors’ Quickly Sent Back,” 114. Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Mariel Cuban Washington Post (February 3, 2000). Custody Report” (August 6, 1999). 97. Solomon, “Immigrant Minors,” Village Voice (February 1, 115. “Coven Statement.” 2000). 116. INA § 240(a). 98. Gonzalez, “2 Illegal Minors, 2 Tales,” Arizona Republic (March 30, 2000). 117. INA § 241(a)(3). 99. Human Rights Watch, “United States: Detained and 118. 8 CFR § 2414(a) (1999). Deprived of Rights: Children in the Custody of the U.S. 119. Under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, Pub L. No. 89- Immigration and Naturalization Service” (December 1998) 732, a national of Cuba can apply for permanent residence at 3. in the United States one year after being inspected, 100. UNHCR Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing admitted or paroled. with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (1997). 120. Memorandum from Michael A Pearson, Executive Associate 101. Id. at ¶ 5.7. Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to all Regional Directors, District 102. “Detention Of Asylum Seekers And Refugees: The Directors, and Officers-in-Charge, “Interim Changes and Framework, The Problem And Recommended Practice,” Instructions for Conduct of Post-Order Custody Reviews,” Executive Committee, Standing Committee, United Nations HQOPS 50/14.6-C (August 6, 1999). See also Immigration High Commissioner for Refugees, 15th Meeting, UN. Doc. and Naturalization Service, “Instructions for Post-Order EC/49/SC/CRP.13 (1999) at 26i. Custody Review — Implementing Interim Changes and 103. See generally, Pinkerton, “Children Crossing Border Alone,” Instructions for Conduct of Post Order Custody Review” Houston Chronicle (February 1, 2000). (October 18, 1999). 104. Pinkerton, “Kids held by INS trapped in limbo between 2 121. Letter from James J. Haggerty, Esq., CLINIC, to Kenneth worlds,” Houston Chronicle (February 6, 2000). Elwood, INS Associate Commissioner for Enforcement, (June 21, 2000). 105. Sullivan, “Jailed refugee girl in eye of political, legal storm,” The Oregonian (December 11,1999); Sullivan, “A Teenage 122. 65 Fed Reg. 40540 (June 30, 2000). Refugee from China talks to the Media,” The Oregonian 123. 8 CFR § 2414(a). (December 14, 1999). 124. In Re: Indefinite Detention Cases, CV 98-674 TJH (JWJx), 106. Id. Memorandum Opinion, US. C.D.C. (January 27, 2000). 107. Brune, “INS Housing Children in Jails; Few Places Left for 125. See generally, Kerwin, Acer, and Leopold, “The Detention of Unaccompanied Kids,” Newsday (February 4, 2000). Noncitizens: An Overview of the Law, Its Implementation, 108. Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 1996) and Legal Strategies,” 1999-2000 Immigration and stipulated settlement agreement, setting forth the Juvenile Nationality Law Handbook, Volume II, Advanced Practice Care Agreement). (American Immigration Lawyers’ Association 1999), at 58- 62; Kerwin, “Detention of Newcomers: Constitutional 109. Flores v. Reno at ¶ 12A. Standards and New Legislation,” Part I, 96-11 Immigration 110. Brune, “INS Housing Children in Jails; Few Places Left for Briefings (November 1996). Unaccompanied Kids,” Newsday (February 4, 2000); Id. 126. “Immigration Detainees in Jails.” 111. Hubler, “The Changing Face of Illegal Immigration is a 127. Harr, “The Mariel Cubans: The Forgotten Lifers,” Migration Child’s,” Los Angeles Times (January 31, 2000). World, Vol XXVII, No. 5 (1999). 112. Statistic provided by Phyllis Coven, senior INS official, at INS 128. Burgenthal, “International Human Rights in a Nutshell,” - NGO meeting on February 17, 2000 in Washington, D.C. (1988) at 33. [hereinafter “Coven Statement”]. 129. “Lost in the Labyrinth” at 70. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 37 130. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). 143. INA § 235(c). 131. A v. Australia, CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (30 April 1997). 144. INA § 240(b)(4)(B). 132. In adopting the ICCPR, the United States made reservations 145. Frenzen, “National Security and Procedural Fairness: Secret that U.S. law would control in the event of any conflict with Evidence and the Immigration Laws,” 76 Interpreter Article 9. However, it is unclear whether these reservations Releases 1677 (November 22, 1999). are internationally valid in accordance with the law of 146. INA § 501, et seq. treaties. See “Vienna Convention” at ¶¶ 17, 18 (“A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object 147. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Press and purpose of the treaty.”) Release, “Congressional Hearing Is Significant Step Forward in Battle to End Secret Evidence” (February 10, 2000). 133. Kerwin, “Detention of Newcomers: Constitutional Standards and New Legislation,” Part I, 96-11 Immigration Briefings 148. Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D.N.J. 1999). (November 1996) at 14-15. 149. Press, “The Strange Case of Hany K.,” American Prospect 134. Matter of Adeniji, Int Dec. 3417 (BIA Nov. 3, 1999). (December 20, 1999). 135. INA § 236(c)(1). 150. Id. 136. See, eg., Aguilar v. Lewis, 50 F.Supp. 2d. 539 (E.D. Va. 151. Ramirez, “Freedom Begins with Elation and Prayer,” New 1999); Velasquez v. Reno, 37 F.Supp. 2d 663 (D.N.J. 1999); York Times (November 30, 1999). Alwaday v. Beebe, 43 F.Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Or. 1999); Kuhali 152. Aschoff, “Ordered Deported, Men Jailed as Threats to v. Ingham, No. 1:99-CV-00156A (W.D.N.Y. July 2, 1999). National Security Cannot Find a Country That Will Have 137. Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Associate Them,” St. Petersburg Times (June 7, 1999). Commissioner for Field Operations, to INS Regional 153. Aschoff, “Two Years in the Dark,” St. Petersburg Times Directors, “Field Guidelines for Applying Revised (May 17, 1999). Interpretation of Mandatory Custody Provision,” HQOPS (DDP) 50/10 (July 12, 1999). 154. Merzer, “Judge: Secret evidence in jailing ‘tainted’,” Miami Herald (June 1, 2000). 138. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1998” (May 155. “Judge denies ‘secret info’ detainment of Palestinian,” 2000) at 45. Associated Press (August 15, 2000). 139. Id. 156. Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D.N.J. 1999); Najjar v. Reno, 97 F. Supp.2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2000). 140. Id. at 35. 157. Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999, HR. 2121 (introduced 141. Jorgensen v. INS, No. 99-70073 (S.D. MI. May 4, 1999). on June 10, 1999). 142. INA § 212(a)(3). 38 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S Aggravated Felony. A term that initially appeared in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). A compilation of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law No. the rules that govern the agencies of the Federal 100-690). At that time, the term included murder Government. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that and certain drug and firearm trafficking crimes. Since represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. 1988, the definition of aggravated felony has been Title 8 pertains to immigration and nationality and is expanded numerous times. Today, it encompasses a composed of all regulations issued by the INS. wide range of crimes including crimes for which a Convention Against Torture (CAT). An international term of imprisonment of one year or more is imposed. agreement protecting a person from return to a If a one-year sentence is imposed but suspended (i.e., country where he or she is more likely than not to be no jail time is served by the person who commits the tortured. The Convention is formally known as the crime), such crime is still considered an aggravated United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other felony. The definition appears at INA §101(a)(43). Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Punishment. There is no filing deadline for protection (AEDPA) (Public Law No. 104-132). Enacted in 1996, and no one is barred from seeking protection under a law that broadened crimes leading to removal, elim- the CAT. Protection under the CAT does not confer inated relief from removal for many crimes, and the right to lawful permanent residence or the right to attempted to limit judicial review. It served as a immigrate family members to the United States. In precursor to the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and addition, a person granted protection under the CAT Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which supple- may be removed to a country where he or she will not mented many of its provisions and replaced others. face torture. Asylee. A person who has been granted asylum in Credible Fear. The standard an asylum-seeker subject the United States because he or she is unable or to expedited removal proceedings must meet in order unwilling to return to his or her country of origin due to avoid immediate removal from the United States. to past persecution or a well-founded fear of future The credibility of one’s statements and other facts persecution. known to the immigration officer must demonstrate a ‘significant possibility’ that the person could establish Asylum. A form of protection available to persons eligibility for asylum. Persons who are determined to physically present in the United States or at a port-of- have a credible fear of persecution will not be entry seeking admission to the United States, who removed in the expedited removal process and can fear returning to their native country due to past seek political asylum in the United States. persecution or a well-founded fear of future perse- cution. The persecution must be based on one of five Deferral of Removal. The form of relief granted to grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a persons who receive protection under the Convention particular social group or political opinion. Except in Against Torture (CAT). Certain persons who would limited circumstances, an application for asylum must likely face torture but who are ineligible for other be filed within one year of an individual’s arrival in the types of relief from removal, may be granted deferral United States. Asylum status is granted in the United of removal under the CAT. Deferral of removal may States, after an application for asylum is approved be terminated if the individual is no longer likely to be under INA §208(a). One year after being granted tortured in the country of removal. In addition, political asylum, an asylee may apply for permanent persons granted deferral may be subject to INS residence in the United States. detention. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The adminis- Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The trative appeals court for decisions made by division within the Department of Justice responsible Immigration Judges, INS District Directors and other for interpreting and administering federal immigration immigration officials. laws and regulations. EOIR accomplishes its tasks REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 39 through immigration court proceedings, appellate Indefinite Detention. An undetermined period of INS reviews, and administrative hearings of individual confinement faced by immigrants who are removable, cases. The EOIR has three main divisions: the Board but whose countries of origin will not accept them. of Immigration Appeals, the Office of the Chief Generally, the INS must remove an immigrant with a Immigration Judge, and the Office of the Chief final order of removal within 90 days of the date of Administrative Hearing Officer. issuance of that order. Natives from countries with whom the U.S. government does not have diplomatic Expedited Removal. A process that provides for the relations or that will not cooperate in the repatriation immediate removal from the United States of indi- of their nationals, such as Cuba, Vietnam, China, viduals who arrive without valid travel documents, Cambodia, Laos, Iran, Iraq and Somalia, cannot be such as a passport and visa. Persons removed in removed. In addition, immigrants who are unable to expedited removal proceedings are barred from re- obtain travel documents cannot be removed. In such entering the United States for a minimum of five cases, prior to the conclusion of the 90-day period, a years. In order to avoid immediate removal, asylum- review of the individual’s continued detention must be seekers who arrive without proper entry documents conducted. This review is conducted by an INS must demonstrate a credible fear of returning to their District Director who has discretion to grant or deny native country. release. If not released from detention after a review, Humanitarian Parole. A form of admission, granted indefinite detainees face prolonged detention for by the Attorney General, for persons who are uncertain periods of time. Lawful permanent residents otherwise ineligible to enter the United States. of the United States may be subject to indefinite Humanitarian parole is only granted in cases involving detention. urgent and compelling factors, such as medical emer- Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). A lawful gencies, or in cases involving significant public benefit. permanent resident is a foreign-born resident of the This status is temporary and only issued to coincide United States, who has the right to live and work in with the duration of the relevant emergency or the United States. Lawful permanent residents do not humanitarian situation. There is a maximum time limit have the right to vote and are subject to deportation if of one year for a humanitarian parole. Under U.S. they are convicted of certain crimes. Lawful immigration law, the term “parole” carries no criminal permanent residents are ‘green card’ holders. implications. Mandatory Detention. The detention of certain cate- Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant gories of immigrants without the possibility of release, Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). (Public Law No. 104- as mandated by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective 208). Enacted on September 30, 1996, a law that Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal dramatically altered U.S. immigration law. It created Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act several new grounds of inadmissibility, restricted the (IIRIRA). Persons subject to mandatory detention ability to apply for asylum, changed inspections and include those subject to expedited removal removal processes, and altered provisions relating to proceedings (including asylum seekers, until they public benefits, document fraud and the detention of establish that they have a “credible fear” of perse- immigrants. cution in their home country); persons who have final Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The statute orders of removal for (normally) 90 days; and many encompassing U.S. immigration law. The INA is found immigrants convicted of crimes. However, immigrants in the United States Code (U.S.C.), a complete convicted of crimes who completed their criminal collection of federal laws. Title 8 of the U.S.C. pertains sentences prior to October 9, 1998 may be exempted to immigration and nationality. from mandatory detention. Inadmissible. The legal term applied to a person who Non-immigrant. A person holding a visa limited for a is not eligible to enter the United States or adjust certain period of time and activity. Non- immigrant status to lawful permanent residence in the United visas are available for tourism, business, temporary States. A person who is inadmissible to the United work, religious work, farm work, educational and States may not be issued an immigrant visa. Common other purposes. While the non-immigrant is residing inadmissibility grounds include health-related in the United States, his or her activity must be problems, previous criminal activity, the possibility of consistent with the provisions of his or her visa. becoming a public charge, fraud, prior removal from the United States, or previous unlawful presence in the United States. 40 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. Refugee. A person who has fled his or her country of Visa. The official document issued by the U.S. origin because of past persecution or a well-founded Department of State at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate fear of future persecution based on one of five abroad that grants an individual legal permission to grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or enter the United States for a particular purpose. a membership in a particular social group. Refugee Voluntary Departure or Return. A form of relief from status is granted outside the United States. The United forcible removal that allows a person in removal Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) proceedings to depart the United States at his or her interviews refugees outside their country of origin to own expense. By agreeing to depart the United determine eligibility for UNHCR protection. If UNHCR States voluntarily, one avoids the consequences of a decides a refugee cannot be safely returned to his or formal order of removal, which normally prohibits a her home country or cannot remain in a country of person from re-entering the United States for ten first asylum, he or she is referred by the UNHCR for years. resettlement in another country. If a refugee is referred to the United States for resettlement, an INS Withholding of Removal. A form of relief from officer interviews the person outside the United States forcible removal available to persons who prove that it in order to determine whether he or she may be is more likely than not that their life or freedom would granted refugee status under U.S. law. If granted be threatened in their country of origin, as a result of refugee status, the refugee may enter the United their race, religion, nationality, membership in a States. One year after entry into the United States, a particular social group or political opinion. (INA § refugee can apply for lawful permanent residence. 241(b)(3)). Like asylum, persons ineligible for with- holding of removal include certain criminals, terrorists, Removal Proceedings. The process during which an and persecutors. Withholding of removal differs from Immigration Judge determines whether a non-citizen asylum in several respects. First, asylum is a discre- may remain in the United States or must be removed. tionary form of protection, but the U.S. government is Prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform bound to offer withholding of removal in accordance and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, these with Article 33 of the United Nations 1951 proceedings were referred to as deportation or Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. exclusion proceedings. Second, persons who seek asylum must make an United Nations Convention on the Rights of the application within one year of arrival in the United Child (CRC). Adopted by the United Nations General States, whereas there is no such deadline for with- Assembly on November 20, 1989, an international holding of removal. Third, only persons in removal human rights treaty that recognizes the vulnerability proceedings may seek withholding of removal. of children and their need for special care and Fourth, unlike asylum, withholding of removal does protection. The Convention identifies the following not serve as a step to lawful permanent residence nor rights as fundamental to children: education, health does it prevent removal to a country where a person is services, and legal assistance; protection from abuse, not at-risk. Finally, withholding of removal does not neglect, and labor that threatens health or education; extend protection to derivative family members. and special protections for children who are refugees, abandoned, or without family. With 191 signatories, the CRC is one of the most widely ratified human rights treaties. The United States and Somalia are the only United Nations members who have not ratified the convention. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, a declaration that defines equal rights as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. The Declaration sets forth multiple rights and freedoms, to which all persons, regardless of race, sex, language, religion, political opinion or nationality, are entitled. Such rights include the right to: leave any country; to return to one’s own country; to seek asylum in other countries; to remain free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest, detention, and exile. REPORT 4 ❘ THE NEEDLESS DETENTION OF IMMIGRANTS 41 C L I N I C ’ s B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski Most Reverend George V. Murry, S.J. Auxiliary Bishop of Miami Bishop of St. Thomas Chairman Most Reverend Armando X. Ochoa Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio Bishop of El Paso Bishop of Camden Mr. Mark Franken Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay Executive Director-USCC/MRS General Secretary-Elect/USCC Most Reverend John H. Ricard, S.S.J. Mr. Edward L. Quinn Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee Senior Vice President, The Enterprise Foundation Sr. RayMonda DuVall Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire Executive Director-Catholic Charities, Diocese of San Diego Bishop of Stockton Mrs. Jane Golden Belford, Esq. Most Reverend Emilio Allué Mr. Austin T. Fragomen Auxiliary Bishop of Boston Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen, P.C Most Reverend Michael P. Driscoll Bishop of Boise C L I N I C ’ s C O R P O R A T E O F F I C E R S Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski Most Reverend George V. Murry, S.J. Auxiliary Bishop of Miami Bishop of St. Thomas President Treasurer Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire Donald M. Kerwin Bishop of Stockton Chief Operating Officer-CLINIC Vice President Secretary To order the report, please contact: Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. McCormick Pavilion 415 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20017 Ph: (202) 635-2556; http://www.cliniclegal.org Cost of the report: $10.00 42 REPORT 4 ❘ CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC.
Pages to are hidden for
"The Needless Detention of Immigrants in the United States"Please download to view full document